‘We do not look with favour on, and very definitely recommend against, the exotic, dimly lighted, voluptuous type of cocktail bar which creates a delusive impression of opulence and social distinction.”
That was one of the conclusions from a B.C. Liquor Inquiry Commission in 1952, back when they knew what approach to take the serving of liquor.
That approach was open hostility to everybody who sold it and acute suspicion of everybody who drank it. It’s amusing to contrast the attitudes in the handful of full-scale liquor inquiries in the last two generations with the one the B.C. Liberals adopted during the one just completed.
The 1952 work has pages of warnings about the danger of alcoholism, and the need for detention rehabilitation centres for habitual drunkards. It condemned beer parlours for serving patrons who were already drunk.
“This is thoroughly reprehensible.”
The commission charged government liquor inspectors with knowing about the deplorable conditions in beer parlours and government liquor stores. It said they were either “grossly incompetent” or had a “sinister disregard of duty,” meaning they were on the take.
Commissioners found abundant evidence the breweries controlled the parlours. They urged the slummy hotels attached to the beer parlours be cleaned up and, in a nod to modernity, suggested allowing radios or gramophones, “but no floor shows.”
It noted that customers at government liquor stores had to pass through three different individuals before they could get service, a practice it found cumbersome.
It’s tempting to think that then-premier W.A.C. Bennett — a teetotaller — had something to do with the generally harsh outlook in the report.
But he was still in power in 1970, when another commission rolled out. What a difference 20 years makes.
That one noted that the public had been complaining for years about everything to do with alcohol. People were wondering about the archaic separate entrances for men and ladies, why drinkers had to be hidden from public view and why even their posture, while within, was regulated.
The commission reviewed the history of government’s control of alcohol since the Prohibition referendum was defeated in 1921 and noted it was based on the premise that booze was an “evil commodity.”
Nonetheless, the government cleared $2.3 million the first year it controlled booze after the referendum. Over the next 50 years, the population quadrupled, but liquor revenue climbed 2,200 per cent. The writing was on the wall.
The newly enlightened commissioners in 1970 said the law was “still dealing with a suspect product and a suspect public.”
So they set out to update the law.
It urged the advertising restrictions on B.C. media be eased, with one important condition: “Women may not be included in illustration unless they are depicted as persons of maturity, dignity and moderation, and are engaged in dignified activities of a wholesome nature … Women will not be shown in immodest, vulgar or provocative dress or situations and there shall be no exploitation or utilization of the female form as the primary theme.”
It recommended dropping the drinking age from 21 to 19 and found “no logical reason why airline passengers should be prevented from purchasing alcoholic beverages in flight.”
It said people found the ban at the time a source of irritation and “no doubt some carry their own supply.”
It found an “abrupt and uncompromising attitude” at the LCB that was reflected in its staff and recommended wholesale retraining to switch over from “control and regulation” to “courtesy to the public.”
Also, it recommended allowing liquor stores to remain open on election day, allowing women to serve beer and allowing windows in beer parlours.
B.C. moved in fits and starts along those lines. Neighbourhood pubs were invented, rules were relaxed for Expo 86 and adjustments were made through the 1990s. The B.C. Liberals were bent on one more major change — privatization of liquor — but never got around to it.
The suite of changes soon to be unveiled — liquor in grocery stores, kids in pubs, relaxing requirements for food to be served — is the next chapter in a long, never-ending story.
