Prohibition in Ontario remained in effect until 1927. Ultimately, the end of prohibition in Ontario was brought about following a controversial vote in the Ontario legislation, led by Premier Howard Ferguson. Public support for prohibition remained high and was supported by public opinion.
Between 1902 and 1927 there were four separate occasions put forward by the government to decriminalize liquor sales and they had all been voted down by the highly temperate population. Political circumstances were hitting a period of vulnerability, as the Conservative government led by Ferguson was on the eve of an election and needed to do something to ensure that their government would be re-elected to office. In an effort to appease Conservative minded voters, Ferguson pressed forward with the Liquor Control Act (LCA), legislation that would end prohibition and enable the sale of alcohol for private and at home consumption. After narrowly passing its second reading in the legislature, the LCA
“faced extreme opposition in both the press and the house” (Thompson & Genosko, 2006: 2).
Desperate to enable the sale of alcohol as an attempt to drum up support, Ferguson passed the legislation when “the final reading occurred without warning at 10 pm on March 30th 1927 and due to the sudden nature of the vote only a “handful of members” were present, according to the published newspaper reports” (Thompson & Genosko, 2006: 2).
With the passage of the LCA, the government immediately took upon the project of establishing the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO). As mentioned earlier, the LCBO was given powers that enabled this organization to control the sale and consumption of alcohol within the province. The LCBO established a number of surveillance technologies in
1927 that were used to control the drinking habits of the population. Notable technologies developed in 1927 included the Liquor Permit Books, (see Figure 2).
Liquor Permit Books were closely watched. These books were issued at a cost of two dollars and were required to be renewed annually. When applying for a permit, a person was required to be examined for good character, that they were not Indian, and that they had not already been previously disqualified by the LCBO. At each point-of-sale, the liquor permit holder’s book would be scrutinized and reviewed for over-consumption and misspending of income. Misspending was identified as a person spending more than their means on alcohol, and this level of examination was meant to ensure that applicants were not overspending on alcohol and that they were still able to provide for their families. Further criteria during the application procedure involved an examination of any previous LCBO disciplinary action, and any abuse of the permit privilege, which included abuses at the local level of the vendor.
The Liquor Permits were considered public documents, they could be examined by a police officer without a warrant, and courtrooms would periodically examine permit books in assessing a person’s character. This led to convictions and imprisonment of some individuals.
In addition, if a permit holder were not exercising proper self-discipline and control over his liquor consumption, he could be issued a letter from the LCBO that his liquor use was under serious investigation and that he was to take this in consideration when exercising his purchasing privilege. These letters underlined that a lack of self-control had been observed and the level of individual surveillance had been intensified.
The function of the liquor permit is notable. In appearance, it resembled a passport in size and shape. Liquor permits were easily identifiable as each included a six digit number that was used to geographically organize the holders based on their place of residence. Inside
Figure 2: Liquor Permit from 1933-1934, Cover and Inside Purchase Section
the permit book included vital information on the holder, such as his name, address, and place of employment (Thompson & Genosko, 2006: 6). For women who were considered homemakers, this was not considered enough information for the LCBO for the purposes of determining whether or not the applicants had been drinking ‘beyond their means’ and, consequently, their husbands’ occupation would be noted. The following pages inside the permit book were used to record every purchase the holder made at a liquor vendor. Here, the vendor recorded each purchase made for home consumption including the date, liquor type, volume and cost (Thompson & Genosko, 2006: 5)
The gaze of the LCBO did not rest at the level of the individual consumer. The vendors were also noted in each individual sale. Every sale of alcohol required a three-step process. First, the consumer was required to fill out a purchase order form. The form involved signing a declaration that stated “I am of the full age of twenty-one years and in accordance with the provisions of the LIQUOR CONTROL ACT OF ONTARIO, I am entitled to make this purchase” (Thompson & Genosko, 2009: 57). The purchase order form
was then taken to the vendor who would examine his permit book and decide whether or not that person had consumed alcohol excessively and to check for any “misspending of income”
(Thompson & Genosko, 2006: 5). If the permit book was clean and the vendor deemed the purchase appropriate, then:
As explained in the LCBO Vendor’s Instructions (1927: 1), after an original Purchase Order Form was filled out, signed by the permitted, and the purchase accepted by the permit clerk, the form was to be stamped “ENDORSED” by the clerk’s individually numbered stamp (LCBO Vendor’s Instructions: 1; LCBO Manual 1951: 6; LCBO Circular no. 653, 1929).
After a purchase was endorsed the permittee handed the form to an employee behind the counter who went back into the stock room to retrieve the order. After handing the permittee the purchase, that “counterman” was also to “stamp the purchase order ‘filled’ with a rubber stamp.” The vendors were to take “the greatest care” in this matter, making sure that no employee used another employee’s stamp (Thompson & Genosko, 2009: 58).
Completed purchase order forms were sent to the LCBO’s head office in Toronto where a staff of about 200 employees would manually review each purchase for any abnormalities. In addition, “the Board regularly offered its purchase records to local and provincial police as well as relief organizations.” Through the purchase order form, it was possible to
“reconstruct purchase events through [each form’s] recorded permit number, endorsed stamp number, filled stamp number, cash register number, and register tape number (Thompson &
Genosko, 2009: 57). Purchase Order Forms were used from 1927 until the 1970s when the LCBO eventually converted its stores into self-serve locations. Provided below, in Figure 3 is an example of a Purchase Order Form. Noticeably absent is the signature and address of the purchaser.
Abuses of the privilege of drinking had a number of responses from the Board.
Among these included receiving a regional stamp on your Liquor Permit, which geographically tied a person to his local liquor store and prevented him from purchasing alcohol from any other vendor.
Figure 3: Purchase Order Form (Thompson & Genosko, 2009: 57)
Since the drinking behaviour of each individual was not only to be regulated and overseen by the Board, the local vendor also played a role in over-seeing each of his customers. One tool that the local vendor had in controlling the drinking behaviour of his clients included the ‘Regional stamp.’ Should a customer’s behaviour become suspect, that he was on the verge of abusing his drinking privileges, the vendor could place a numbered Regional Stamp in his Permit Book. Since it was known that some drinkers would frequent several different stores, the vendor could take the responsibility to overseeing by limiting all of their purchases to a single liquor store. By placing a numbered Regional Stamp on a Liquor Permit, no other liquor store could sell alcohol to the individual with the exception of the single store identified by the number on the stamp. “Vendors were instructed by Head
vendor felt that a permittee was over-consuming liquor, he was to stamp the permit with the Regional Stamp and ‘write on the permit the quantity of beer [or liquor] per week to which he considers such permittee should be restricted” (Thompson & Genosko, 2006: 6-7). Further use of the regional stamp was used when a person entered a liquor store and attempted to purchase alcohol while intoxicated. His Permit Book would be regionally stamped and his
“Liquor Permit Book would be marked by vendors with red capital letter ‘R’s in each column of the purchase section,” (Thompson & Genosko, 2006: 7) noting that his purchase had been refused.