Article content continued

The SAQ’s predecessor was established in 1921 at the height of the temperance movement. Quebec, which had the most liberal liquor laws at that time, decided only to restrict access to alcohol, not prohibit it. The state monopoly was meant to control the flow of alcohol and ensure its sale was conducted in a responsible manner — more responsible than they believed the private sector could do it. In Ontario, this “social responsibility” argument is still used by the government to prevent convenience stores from selling beer (the height of government daring is to permit its sale, eventually, under tight restrictions, in large urban grocery stores). State control also helped prevent bootleggers from overtaking the domestic market.

Until 1970, in Quebec, bottles were not on display in stores. Only a clerk, protected by a counter and metal grid, could fetch you your bottles of booze. It’s the same logic that keeps cigarettes hidden in stores today – if you can’t see it, it won’t tempt you.

As archaic as this system was, it fit the philosophy of the time: the state was involved in the sale of liquor because it could control how it was sold and prevent capitalist tendencies towards encouraging consumption.

Fast forward to today, and the state’s actions no longer reflect their outdated rhetoric. Way past the goal of social responsibility, liquor monopolies act as cash cows for the state. Massive budgets for advertising and new efforts towards a “digital revolution”, as Mr. Brunet calls it, seek only to attract people into their stores and expose products to the consumers they were mandated to protect. Now the only thing the government seeks to protect is its own coffers.