From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Conrad Eder

Consumer choice, not government coercion, should shape the market. Doug Ford’s alcohol crackdown trades symbolic outrage for sound policy and Ontarians will pay the price

Ontario politicians have developed an insatiable appetite for prohibition. Having already imposed a sweeping ban on all American alcohol, Premier Doug Ford has now threatened to remove Crown Royal, Smirnoff and potentially other brands from LCBO shelves. Such authoritarian impulses reflect a disturbing shift in our political culture—one that undermines economic prosperity and individual liberty.

After Diageo, the multinational behind brands like Crown Royal and Smirnoff, announced in August that it would close its Amherstburg, Ont., bottling facility, affecting 200 workers, the political response was swift. NDP MPP Lisa Gretzky urged the government to retaliate by pulling Crown Royal from LCBO shelves. Days later, Ford dramatically dumped a bottle of the whisky during a press conference, signalling he might follow through.

Now, the premier has escalated the threat, vowing to remove Smirnoff and potentially other Diageo products.

These gestures may make headlines, but they come at a cost. They undermine business confidence, discourage investment, and send the wrong message to employers. More fundamentally, they reflect a poor understanding of how free societies settle disputes and make decisions.

To understand what’s at stake, it helps to consider the two basic mechanisms available to democratic societies: the marketplace and the ballot box. At the ballot box, citizens vote once, and majority rule determines a single outcome. The marketplace, by contrast, allows people to vote continuously with their dollars. Individuals make countless choices reflecting their own values and priorities. You get what you choose—without overriding anyone else’s preference.

There’s a role for government in correcting market failures, where there’s fraud, monopoly power or public risk. But banning legal products simply because of political displeasure with a company’s decision is not market correction. It’s coercion.

Diageo’s decision to close a facility may be unfortunate, but it doesn’t involve deception, unfair dominance, or harm to the public. Bans aren’t rooted in sound principle; they’re political, plain and simple.

Some argue the government is justified in acting to protect Ontario jobs. But that line of thinking is short-sighted. If job protection alone warranted banning products, we’d resist every innovation or trade deal that disrupted the status quo. Sustainable job growth depends on encouraging investment and innovation, not shielding every position from change.

The appropriate response to plant closures is policy reform, not retaliation. Ontario should focus on creating an environment where businesses want to invest and grow. That means fostering a stable, competitive business climate with clear rules, reasonable taxes, and efficient regulation. Threatening companies with bans only creates uncertainty and drives investment elsewhere.

With Ontarians spending $740 million annually on Diageo products, removing them from store shelves would impose real economic costs. Consumers would face fewer choices, weaker competition, and higher prices. Restaurants and retailers would be forced to adjust. The LCBO, Ontario’s government-run liquor retailer, would lose sales.

This isn’t hypothetical. The province’s ban on American alcohol is already projected to block nearly $1 billion in annual sales, while doing nothing to benefit Ontario consumers. The LCBO is serving political interests, not the public.

Supporters of such bans often reveal their lack of confidence in public opinion. Rather than persuade others to boycott a product voluntarily, they demand that government enforce a blanket restriction.

There’s a better way. Consumer-led boycotts offer accountability without coercion. They allow individuals to act on their beliefs without forcing others to comply. And they tend to be more effective, as companies respond faster to falling sales than to political theatrics.

But the issue at hand goes beyond liquor. It’s about whether elected officials should impose a single set of preferences on everyone, or whether citizens are trusted to decide for themselves.

Each new ban makes the next one easier to justify. Over time, these interventions accumulate and normalize government interference in private choice. Unlike consumer preferences, which can shift quickly and reverse, government prohibitions often persist. The LCBO’s century-old structure is evidence of how long some policies endure, even when they no longer serve the public interest.

This isn’t a call to eliminate government’s role. But it is a call for principled governance, the kind that distinguishes between legitimate oversight and overreach rooted in symbolism or political frustration.

Ontario’s government would do better to focus on long-term prosperity. That means building an economy where investors feel welcome, businesses can grow, and consumers are free to choose.

Ontarians are perfectly capable of making their own choices about which products to buy and which companies to support. They don’t need politicians like  Ford making those decisions for them.

Conrad Eder is a policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis is urging Canadians to demand a parliamentary debate on the WHO Pandemic Agreement, highlighting risks to national sovereignty.

Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Leslyn Lewis called on Canadians to petition against the World Health Organization’s (WHO) pandemic treaty before it becomes legally binding.

In an October 23 post on X, Lewis encouraged Canadians to demand that politicians debate the WHO Pandemic Agreement before it becomes law after warnings that the treaty could undermine national freedom and lead to global surveillance.

“I have raised red flags about its implications on Canada’s health sovereignty and the federal government’s willingness to enter a legally binding treaty of this weight without any input from Parliament,” she declared.

In May, Canada, under Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney, adopted the treaty despite warnings that the agreement gives the globalist entity increased power in the event of another “pandemic.”

However, Lewis revealed that since the agreement has yet to be officially signed, Canada is not bound to it and can still make amendments.

“We are now in a critical window of opportunity to ask tough questions and debate the treaty before it is signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and binds our nation,” she explained.

Lewis encouraged Canadians to sign a petition calling for a debate of the agreement as well as contacting their local MPs to request a parliamentary review of the treaty.

Lewis revealed that Canadians’ persistent opposition to the treaty has already resulted in some of the more dangerous clauses, including restricting free speech, freedom of movement, and government surveillance, being removed from the final agreement.

“Thanks to the engagement of countless Canadians and concerned citizens around the world, the most extreme provisions in the WHO Pandemic Treaty were removed — these measures would have undermined national healthcare sovereignty and given international bureaucrats sweeping powers,” Lewis declared.

“The removal of provisions on vaccine mandates, misinformation and disinformation, censorship requirements, travel restrictions, global surveillance, and mandatory health measures happened because people paid attention and spoke up,” she continued.

Among the most criticized parts of the agreement is the affirmation that “the World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

While the agreement claims to uphold “the principle of the sovereignty of States in addressing public health matters,” it also calls for a globally unified response in the event of a pandemic, stating plainly that “(t)he Parties shall promote a One Health approach for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”