Loosening Liquor Laws: When It Makes Sense, or Doesn't

For two years in my checkered past I was the minister in charge of liquor in this province and the first thing I learned was that the history of liquor control has everything to do with the present.

This history was recently outlined in the Vancouver Sun to whom I'm grateful for this extract:

Oct. 1, 1917: B.C. Prohibition Act takes effect.

October 1920: The electorate (for the first time including women) rejects prohibition in favour of liquor sales in government stores.

1921: The first government-owned liquor stores open. To purchase liquor from a government store, a customer needs a permit that costs nearly a day's wages for the average worker.

1921: The Government Liquor Act declares unlicensed public drinking illegal and bans the private sale of nearbeer. In response, many Vancouver hotels open private 'clubs' in their former saloons.

1925: The first beer parlours open in Vancouver after the government allows them for hotels.

The important outcome of this was the beer parlour. In order to obtain a licence the publican was required to create "value added" which, for small town B.C., meant building a hotel to house the beer parlour. This provision lasted for over 40 years until the Barrett government allowed the neighborhood pub.

For those who have no experience with the beer parlour, they were hideous places, which stank of stale beer, cigarette smoke and urine from the adjacent restrooms.

They had two sides, one for men, one for ladies and escorts only. If you were a young swain on the prowl, the trick was to canvass the ladies and escorts side for ladies without escorts.

In a moment I'll tell you how the beer parlour was tossed on to history's rubbish heap.

Up with pubs

When the neighborhood pub came along it was a serious contender for the beer parlours' income as they could serve hard liquor as well as food and could stay open longer. The beer parlours hollered "foul" and demanded the same rights. I was minister during this period and I can tell you that selling hard liquor in beer parlours was not on politically.

In 1978, a second strike in the breweries in two years really put the pressure on the beer parlours, which were left with bottled beer. So my ministry authorized importing American bottled beer, and that got me in a pickle as the striking brewery employees called me a strike breaker. Then we were hit for violating the federal languages law since the beer was not labeled in French. I responded that I felt that the tiny number of British Columbians who spoke only French would be able to recognize a bottle of beer when they saw it!

Heads together, the director of the Liquor Licensing Branch, Vic Woodland, my deputy Tex Enemark and I came up with an idea. We would create a new hotel pub licence that would allow the hotels to serve liquor, but only if they created a pub atmosphere like those found in the U.K.

We also made it clear that we didn't expect small town hotels to match bigger urban hotels. They also were confined to 125 customers and 25 standees.

All hell broke loose. This was blackmail! Extortion! You name it.

Shortly after the announcement, I was corralled by two brothers who ran a hotel with a beer parlour in a small town in my constituency, and they were in the mood to lynch me.

When I finally was given the floor, I asked how many people they would serve on a weekday at any one time? The answer: 40 to 50. On weekends? Maybe 100.

I said, "This licence will be for up to 125 permitted. You can sell all the hard liquor you wish and all the government asks is that you take that dump you have and make it fit for husband and wife to get a drink in."

There was, if such can happen, an audible silence. One brother turned to his brother and said, "George, maybe Rafe is onto something here."

Almost simultaneously hotels around the province saw the light and took up the new licence. For beer parlours, it was good riddance and R.I.P.

Not dealing in soda pop

I tell you all this to put into perspective John Yap's current report showing eagerness to expand who can sell beer, wine and liquor -- the most controversial being grocery stores.

My history lesson is intended to help us see what the private liquor stores are so antsy about.

They've had to spend a lot of money furbishing their stores for which they pay substantial rents.

Giving the right to sell liquor to large grocery stores, even if it's only beer and wine, must seem a betrayal of trust to private stores.

It's history biting the government's backside.

During my time as minister in charge of booze, we did some research with Vic Woodland, personally touring American jurisdictions that sold booze in grocery stores. The police in these areas told Vic we would be mad to do this, if only because of increased alcohol problems and the effect that minors now have with better access to alcohol.

I tell you all this because of what Vic Woodland said to me as we were musing about making alcohol more freely available.

"Minister, we're not talking about soda pop here."

This isn't about getting up-to-date and more liberal in our attitude about alcohol, but whether or not "liberalizing" liquor laws is in the best interest of B.C. as a whole.

The curse of the Independent Power Producers

Shifting to a different topic, now. Ten days ago Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer broke his virtual silence on Independent Power Producers (IPPs) by giving quite a bit of space to defenders of the projects, Green MLA Andrew Weaver (who claims they are a noble example of private investment in clean energy) and interim BC Green party leader Adam Olsen (who praised IPPs as sources of jobs and income for First Nations in the province).

The bigger story is what these IPPs are doing to BC Hydro. They are bankrupting it.

The story line is simple. When you read this you will say to yourself, "Self, this can't be true!" But it is. And here it is in a nutshell.

In 2003 the former and unlamented premier, Gordon Campbell, forbade BC Hydro from making new energy and decreed that the crown corporation must buy everything produced by IPPs -- in other words, "take or pay." Most private IPP power can only be produced during the run-off when BC Hydro has reservoirs full brimming over and therefore has no need for IPP production.

The cost of this IPP energy is two to three times the market rate, and many times what it would cost BC Hydro to make it for itself. As a result of these obligations, at this point BC Hydro will owe some $50-55 billion over the next 20-30 years!

In short, BC Hydro will be shelling out some $1.5 billion each year for energy that it doesn't need!

Weaver doesn't seem to get that it's not private investors absorbing the risk of investing in these energy producers, it's the citizens of British Columbia and BC Hydro customers who must make up the difference in massive revenues lost and debts accrued.

This is what Premier Christy Clark and Energy Minister Rich Coleman -- and the Vancouver Sun and the Province -- are keeping from you.

Pay up, suckers, and stop asking questions!