Say no to American strawberries? Federal leaders reveal how they 'Buy Canadian', what U.S. products they avoid after Trump tariffs
15 April 2025, Baden-Württemberg, Oberkirch: Master orchardist Dominic Ell holds a bowl of his strawberries in his hand. In South Baden, some strawberry varieties are already ready for harvest. Photo: Philipp von Ditfurth/dpa (Photo by Philipp von Ditfurth/picture alliance via Getty Images)
During the French-language leaders' debate, candidates from four different political parties were asked a seemingly simple question that made for a rare quirky moment from the night.
Radio-Canada's Patrice Roy, who moderated the Wednesday night debate, asked Mark Carney, Pierre Poilievre, Jagmeet Singh and Yves-François Blanchet what they had given up since the trade war began with the U.S. Before he was able to finish his question, Blanchet replied: "Strawberries! I buy them myself. They cost six bucks for a box."
Roy chuckled and followed up to confirm if he had given up strawberries. Blanchet was quick to reveal he only buys Quebec strawberries.
ADVERTISEMENT
The moment briefly stuck with Canadian viewers following the debate online, some of whom seemed to have enjoyed the admission.
French Debate is pretty good. All the "other" leaders said what they do not buy from the US is Strawberries, and that they do their own shopping. Carney said in an interview last week that he does not buy strawberries or anything, others buy for him
— Bill Nadraszky (@billnad) April 16, 2025
This strawberries conversation is the least edifying part of the debate so far.
— Andrew Coyne 🇺🇦🇮🇱🇬🇪🇲🇩 (@acoyne) April 16, 2025
Surprised no one said Spinach.. its one thing I miss about buying Canadian. Cant wait to grow my own soon.
— Siva Swaminathan 🇨🇦 🌻 (@chezsiva) April 16, 2025
NDP leader Jagmeet Singh said he avoids American products as he shops for groceries himself and cooks at home.
ADVERTISEMENT
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre said "I love beef," noting he only buys Canadian beef and no American strawberries either.
Mark Carney took a slightly different route as he said he is not buying any more of the American wine, but all four leaders agreed they were not buying American strawberries.
The leaders are asked to name one American product they've stopped buying. Carney says wine. Blanchet, Singh and Poilievre all say strawberries. The moderator says 'everyone's eating a lot of strawberries.' #cdnpol
— Touria Izri (@TouriaIzri) April 16, 2025
Leaders were asked which American products they no longer buy at the debate. All mentioned food. Strawberries were mentioned a few times. I think the party leaders are hungry tonight.
— Matt Dagley (@mattdagley) April 16, 2025
Tariffs on common Canadian goods
Roy's question came as part of a larger discussion over how the leaders planned to tackle Donald Trump and his administration imposing additional tariffs on Canada.
ADVERTISEMENT
On March 4, 2025, the U.S. imposed tariffs of 25 per cent on Canadian exports, and 10 per cent on energy product exports from Canada. In response, the Canadian government imposed 25 per cent tariffs on $30 billion in goods imported from the United States. The 25 per cent retaliatory tariffs mean Canadians may have to pay more for a wide range of U.S. products.
While light-hearted, the exchange highlighted a deeper political undercurrent — the everyday economic pressures facing Canadians during the U.S. tariff standoff.
Trump's attacks against Canada — both annexation threats and tariff charges — have played a critical role in shaping the Canadian election over the last three months. For instance, the race to the finish line, which was a one-sided story back in Dec. 2024 in favour of Poilievre is now back to a tight race with the Liberals back in the game after polling their lowest numbers ever during Justin Trudeau's last days as prime minister.
Trump's tariff policies seems to have put domestic issues like inflation, housing affordability and economic insecurity on the back-burner for Canadians remain concerned about their nation's identity and sovereignty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
23 minutes ago
Britain hopes a crackdown on people-smugglers' social media ads will help curb Channel crossings
LONDON -- Britain says people who advertise fake passports or people-smuggling services on social medial could face up to five years in prison, in the government's latest effort to deter migrants from crossing the English Channel in small boats. The government said Sunday that anyone convicted of creating online materials intended to break U.K. immigration law will face prison time and a large fine. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the aim was to stop the 'brazen tactics on social media' used by smuggling gangs. 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the U.K. and a life in this country — whether on or offline — simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral,' she said. Assisting illegal immigration to the U.K. is already a crime, but officials believe a new offense — part of a border security bill currently going through Parliament — will give police and prosecutors more powers to disrupt gangs that send migrants on perilous journeys across one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said the crime gangs are a threat to global security and should be treated like terror networks. Since taking office a year ago, Starmer's center-left Labour Party government has adopted powers to seize the assets of people-smugglers, beefed up U.K. border surveillance and increased law-enforcement cooperation with France and other countries to disrupt the journeys. Despite that, more than 25,000 people have reached Britain by boat so far this year, an increase of 50% on the same period in 2024. Small boat crossings have become a potent political issue, fueled by pictures of smugglers piling migrants into overcrowded, leaky inflatable boats on the French coast. Opposition parties say the government's plans aren't working — though the government argues the problems built up during 14 years when the Conservative Party was in power, The Conservatives say Starmer should not have scrapped the previous government's contentious and expensive plan to send migrants arriving by boat on a one-way trip to Rwanda. 'This is a panicked attempt to look tough after months of doing nothing,' Conservative immigration spokesman Chris Philp said. The government says it will take time to clear a backlog of applications that has left thousands of migrants stuck in temporary accommodation — often hotels — without the right to work. The hotels have become flashpoints for tension, attracting protests fueled by a mix of local concern, misinformation and anti-immigrant agitation.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Western nations want a Palestinian state. But Arab nations keep their distance.
Britain's announcement that it may recognize a Palestinian state, along with France and Canada, is another signal of Western frustration with Israel, nearly two years into the war sparked by Hamas' attacks. But while outrage over Gaza dominates headlines in Western capitals, a quieter and far more revealing story is unfolding in the Arab world. The leaders who live closest to Gaza − and who arguably understand the players, history and regional dynamics best − are not escalating the political pressure on Israel. Instead, they're recalibrating, reassessing and, in some cases, even deepening their ties with the Jewish state. Like some Western nations, Arab states have strongly condemned civilian casualties and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and called for a future Palestinian state. However, unlike their Western counterparts, they have not allowed Hamas, the group that ignited this war with an unprovoked massacre on Oct. 7, 2023, to shape the moral narrative. They haven't withdrawn from the Abraham Accords, recalled their ambassadors or severed diplomatic ties with Jerusalem. Even in moments of high emotion, they're choosing long-term strategy over symbolic gestures. That choice speaks volumes. With Gaza conflict, it's important to know the participants In Saudi Arabia over the past year, senior figures have publicly criticized Hamas. In Egypt and Jordan, leaders are focused on regional stability and working to contain, not inflame, the conflict. In Iraq, Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani revealed that his government thwarted nearly 30 attempted attacks on Israel and U.S. troops during Iran's spring offensive. That included foiling drone launches from Iraqi soil, which underscores how far some Arab states are going to stop the conflict from spreading. So why are Western cities ablaze with protests while Arab capitals work the phones in quiet diplomacy? Unlike Western activists who chant 'from the river to the sea' without knowing what river or which sea, Arab governments know precisely what Hamas is. They've dealt with its destabilizing ideology, its ties to Iran and its contempt for compromise. They understand that Hamas does not seek peace, statehood or coexistence. It seeks perpetual war and Islamic revolution. Opinion: Anti-Hamas protests erupt in Gaza. Where are our pro-Palestine 'allies' now? In contrast, too many in the West are waging an ideological campaign detached from regional reality. In their fervor to stand with 'Palestine,' they overlook that Hamas is not a liberation movement. It is a jihadist militia that exploits civilian suffering to manipulate global opinion. They also forget that, for all its flaws, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East where Arabs and Jews alike vote, protest and serve in parliament. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Hamas has noticed, it has openly praised European governments for their positions on Israel. In Ireland, lawmakers are pushing to criminalize trade with Israelis. Now, as Britain considers recognition of a Palestinian state along with France and Canada, Hamas' strategy of provocation and propaganda is paying diplomatic dividends. The result is a surreal inversion: While the Arab nations inch toward coexistence, the West drifts into moral chaos. What was once a principled defense of human rights has morphed into selective outrage, often blind to the region's realities and exploited by its most destructive actors. Empowering Hamas will worsen, not improve, life in Gaza This isn't just dangerous for Jews and Israelis; it's corrosive to liberal democracy itself. When human rights are applied selectively, when terrorism is downplayed or excused and when Hamas' calls to destroy Israel and slaughter its citizens are rationalized as 'resistance,' something fundamental is breaking. Tell us: Are you concerned about starvation in Gaza? Should US do more to help? | Opinion Forum It may be time for the West to look east − not for answers, but for clarity. The Arab world is not embracing Hamas. It's moving on. It's negotiating, normalizing and, in some cases, partnering with Israel to contain shared threats. If the goal is a better future for Israelis and Palestinians, outrage isn't a strategy. It's a spectacle. And the people closest to the conflict seem to understand that best. Aviva Klompas is the former director of speechwriting at the Israeli Mission to the United Nations and cofounder of Boundless Israel, a nonprofit organization that partners with community leaders in the U.S. to support Israel education and combat hatred of Jews. She is cohost of the "Boundless Insights" podcast. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Israel finds support in Middle East as West backs Palestine | Opinion Solve the daily Crossword
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Judges are scrutinizing the latest mismatch between White House deportation rhetoric and DOJ's position in court
Homeland Security officials did not respond to requests for comment. A White House spokesperson, Abigail Jackson, did not directly respond to questions about the discrepancy between Miller's comments and the administration's position in court. 'The Trump Administration is committed to carrying out the largest mass deportation operation in history by enforcing federal immigration law and removing the countless violent, criminal illegal aliens that Joe Biden let flood into American communities,' Jackson said. A Justice Department spokesperson said there is no disconnect between the DOJ's court filings and the White House's public statements. 'The entire Trump Administration is united in fully enforcing our nation's immigration laws and the DOJ continues to play an important role in vigorously defending the President's deportation agenda in court,' the DOJ spokesperson said. Immigration advocates have pointed to reports about the daily 3,000-arrest quota as proof that the administration's most extreme tactics — ones they contend violate due process and other constitutional or legal principles — are the result of a single-minded drive to hit numerical targets. Judges have pointed to those reports as well, figuring them into the analysis of whether the administration's tactics are legal. The existence of the target has created particular complications in the case challenging the immigration sweeps in Los Angeles. The administration is fighting an order that a federal judge issued last month prohibiting ICE from conducting 'roving' immigration arrests based on broad criteria such as presence at a home improvement store or car wash. The claim of a quota featured prominently in oral arguments at the 9th Circuit last week on the administration's bid to overturn that order. And when the 9th Circuit ruled Friday night, leaving the order largely intact, the judges seemed to highlight the contradiction by quoting the entirety of DOJ's denial and then taking note of Miller's statement to Fox about a 'goal.' The three Democratic-appointed judges assigned to the case said the vague factors ICE appeared to be relying on 'impermissibly cast suspicion on large segments of the law-abiding population, including anyone in the District who appears Hispanic, speaks Spanish or English with an accent, wears work clothes, and stands near a carwash, in front of a Home Depot, or at a bus stop.' During the arguments Monday, the appeals judges assigned to the case pressed the Justice Department for an answer on whether ICE officers were under pressure to meet some numerical target that might encourage them to detain people based on grounds that fall short of the 'reasonable suspicion' the law required.
