Why BC Will Pay More for Less Liquor Choice - And The Double Price BC Charges For One California Wine

BC Liquor Stores - $42.90 + TAX = $49.44 CDN price

San Francisco corner store - $17.99 US or $24.06 CDN price

Local wineries could face supermarket squeeze while consumers swallow the cost.

Bill Tieleman’s 24 Hours Vancouver / The Tyee column

Tuesday December 1, 2015

By Bill Tieleman

"I've seen the future, I can't afford it."

- ABC, "How to Be a Millionaire," 1985

The future is indeed unaffordable for wine, beer and spirits drinkers in British Columbia, because what are already the highest prices in North America are doomed to rise even more while B.C. wines get squeezed off the shelves.

Why? Government policy of course.

The BC Liberals are creating a brave new world of increasingly pricey alcoholic beverages under the guise of "convenience."

But B.C. liquor prices are already far too expensive -- take the example of just one bottle of wine that costs double here what you can buy it for in California.

In San Francisco in August in a nondescript corner store on Haight Street, I bought a bottle of excellent Beringer Knights Valley Cabernet Sauvignon for US$17.99. In Canadian dollars that's $24.06.

In BC Liquor Stores, the regular price is $42.90 -- plus 10 cent deposit, 10 per cent PST and five per cent GST adding $6.44 for a final price of $49.44!

The B.C. price is $25.38 more -- over twice the San Francisco price -- for the same wine.

And while that Beringer wine costs more in Quebec than San Francisco, at $37.25 including taxes -- it's still $12.19 cheaper than in B.C. And in Ontario it's $39.95 or $9.49 cheaper.

And it's not just because Beringer make their wine in California. Across the country there's Allendale Wine Shoppe in New Jersey, where you get a bottle of the exact same wine for US$18.90 plus taxes of US$1.32 for a total of just US$20.22 -- or CDN$27.04.

To add insult to injury, the BC Liquor Stores website notes that it has sold Beringer Knights Valley Cabernet Sauvignon since 1989, when the price was CDN$21.70.

That means the San Francisco wine price in August 2015 was only CDN$2.36 a bottle more than in B.C. a stunning 26 years ago in 1989.

Small winery squeeze?

The Beringer price isn't necessarily the model for all B.C. wine pricing over the past two and a half decades -- but it isn't unique either.

And as bad as that is, things will soon get far worse.

That's because B.C. is starting to sell wine in supermarkets and in every jurisdiction in the world, once that starts, those stores dominate the market and crush smaller competitors.

The only ones to benefit will be supermarket owners -- not cold beer and wine stores, not independent wine outlets, not government liquor stores, not corner groceries and most of all, definitely not consumers -- who will pay more and have less choices.

In Australia, a new report says just two supermarket chains account for 70 per cent of all wine sales.

New Zealand grocery giants similarly went from no share of the wine market in the 1980s to nearly 70 per cent in a very short period of time, according to one B.C. lawyer.

And despite B.C.'s stated intention to only allow provincial wines to be sold in supermarkets, California, Chile and the European Union have all said the rules violate international trade agreements -- in other words, the world's wines, not just those from B.C., will no doubt end up in supermarkets.

That will mean small B.C. wineries with higher production costs than giant corporate brands like Yellow Tail or Gallo will get squeezed out of both sales and shelf space.

"Go down a grocery aisle to the ketchup section. What do you see there? Heinz, dominating the shelves," said Kim Pullan of Church and State winery in August. "I see the same thing happening to B.C. wine."

The bad, ugly and 'on sale'

Consumers might potentially benefit from free enterprise competition driving prices down but not here -- because the BC Liberals aren't opening the market up -- they're instead managing it to help bigger businesses take more market share without competing on price.

And the government will maintain it's huge revenue stream from overtaxing alcohol.

It's a bleak situation for those who drink wine, beer and spirits and those brave souls who produce it here in B.C.

But not according to Premier Christy Clark's deputy chief of staff, Michele Cadario.

"You can bet that this government will fight very strongly for this industry and we would never do anything that would unnecessarily jeopardize it," Cadario told a gathering of winery and liquor store owners in Penticton in October without a hint of irony.

"For the premier and this government, the B.C. wine industry is hugely important," Cadario told an event organized by the BC Alliance for Smart Liquor Retail Choices. "We know how jobs are tied to this and we know how passionately the wine industry really feel."

It is tempting to see how the government really feels about B.C. wineries by filing a freedom-of-information request for all Cadario's communications on the subject -- but that would be a waste of time -- because Cadario has been cited by the Information and Privacy Commissioner for deleting virtually all her emails.

The government does have its defenders. The BC Wine Institute says the move to place only B.C. wines in grocery shelves is "dramatically changing the business outlook for the better" and claims it will not negatively impact public or private stores.

That's highly unlikely. Both the Alliance and the BC Government and Service Employees Union called in late September for a six-month moratorium on issuing new supermarket wine licenses -- to no avail.

The only tiny bit of good news? If you really still want that Beringer, it's on sale for $4 off in B.C. till Jan. 2 -- for "just" $38.90 plus tax.

.

Defence argues RCMP entrapped hapless BC Legislature bomb plotters - could conviction be stayed?

RCMP explaining bomb plot - Carmine Marinelli/24 Hours photo

Judge orders document disclosure in case deciding if RCMP entrapped bomb plotters.

Bill Tieleman’s 24 Hours Vancouver / The Tyee column

Tuesday November 24, 2015

By Bill Tieleman

"In this case there is evidence that the RCMP's actions during Project Souvenir constituted the offence of facilitation of a terrorist activity." 

- BC Supreme Court Justice Catherine Bruce on BC Legislature bomb plot case

While police forces in France and Belgium battle fierce ISIL attackers, the RCMP is facing a potential entrapment ruling that could free two jailed but hapless B.C. "terrorists" convicted in the 2013 Canada Day bomb plot.

And even worse, presiding justice Catherine Bruce ruled in a disclosure decision last week where the defence is requesting RCMP solicitor-client communications that:

"I have found that the defence has raised a prima facie case that the RCMP violated s. 83.19 of the [Criminal] Code by providing money, services, and accommodation that helped them to commit terrorist activities."

"Illegality by the police can support a stay of proceedings based upon entrapment or the wider concept of abuse of process," she wrote.

Yes, while other police forces fight murderous armed extremists, the RCMP stands accused by a judge of possibly facilitating terrorism -- and could give John Nuttall and Amanda Korody a get out of jail free card!

Only in Canada, you say? Thank goodness!

The high-profile case RCMP codenamed Project Souvenir employed 240 officers for four months in an undercover investigation -- all to go after Nuttall and Korody, two methadone-dependent ex-drug addicts living on welfare in a Surrey basement suite, playing videogames and paintball.

Nuttall and Korody were wannabe al-Qaeda terrorists who couldn't mastermind their way out of a paper bag, defence evidence showed... until an RCMP undercover operative posing as a rich Arab businessman befriended them and assisted their plot.

Nuttall and Korody were convicted by a jury in June of conspiring to commit murder and possession of explosives for the benefit or on behalf of a terrorist organization for placing three pressure cooker bombs they wrongly believed were armed near the BC Legislature on Canada Day. (RCMP undercover agents ensured the bombs were inert.)

But that conviction cannot be registered until Bruce decides if the pair were entrapped by RCMP into taking their actions. If so, they could be off the hook.

Nuttall's defence lawyer Marilyn Sandford had an ominous warning after the conviction in June.

"The RCMP manufactured this crime, and that is not permissible in our law. We also have arguments that the police themselves committed crimes. They were involved in exactly the same activities as our clients were to a large extent, at least some of them," Sandford told media.

Crown prosecutor Peter Eccles disagreed outside the court, telling media: "They weren't entrapped. It was done using old-fashioned undercover police investigation technique."

'This trial is not a drama'

But now Justice Bruce in her disclosure decision appears to agree at least in part with Sandford.

And the Crown prosecution had already been in trouble with Bruce, coming very close to causing a mistrial for showing the jury a lengthy video that included police detonating a pressure cooker bomb that demolished plywood boards ringed around it.

"That dramatic video production... took my breath away with its impropriety," Bruce said to Crown prosecutor Peter Eccles in comments that were banned from publication at the time but subsequently made public in June after the jury was sequestered.

"I don't know how I can bring the jury from a state of inflammatory to a state of neutral after you have created this American-television view of this trial," Bruce said.

And Bruce also severely chastised Eccles again for raising arguments that the judge had ordered not be given to the jury.

In Eccles closing statement he explained and made a counter-argument against the defences of entrapment and duress -- but Nuttall and Korody's lawyers had never brought up in the trial.

"(This) is unspeakable... I've never experienced this before. Ever," Bruce told Eccles.

Eccles responded that the defence's closing arguments left the jury with the suggestion RCMP had manipulated and enticed Nuttall and Korody into the illegal activities, though the defence never used the words entrapment or duress.

When the jury returned, Bruce told them to be cautious about the Crown's "dramatic ending."

"This trial is not a drama. It is a real-life situation in which the guilt or the innocence of these two people are in your hands," Bruce said. "You must put aside the drama and focus on the evidence that you saw and you heard in this trial."

'Facilitated' crime

From the beginning of this case, defence lawyers argued that their clients were incapable of taking violent action on their own, even raising questions about their mental status and saying the RCMP's covert operation was a "Mr. Big" sting, where suspects are approached by an undercover operative posing as a big-time criminal who befriends them to win their confidence and gain evidence against them.

And as I wrote back in 2013, there are many examples in the United States of sting operations where clueless and troubled individuals have been convicted of terrorist plots after undercover agents and informers "facilitated" their crimes in astonishing ways.

James Cromitie was an ex-drug dealer working at Wal-Mart when an FBI informant promised him $250,000 and a new BMW vehicle to fire surface to air missiles at U.S. military planes and bomb Jewish targets in New York.

"Only the government could have made a 'terrorist' out of Mr. Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope," said judge Colleen McMahon.

"I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that there would have been no crime here except the government instigated it, planned it and brought it to fruition," McMahon said, but still gave Cromitie 25 years in jail.

That case illustrates the challenge to defence lawyers to successfully argue entrapment in the United States.

To be continued...

In Canada, as Justice Bruce wrote, there are significant cases outlining the test for entrapment that she will reference in her final decision. In her recent disclosure decision, she wrote that the intent of the RCMP officers, whether they acted in bad faith, and whether they committed illegal acts, are all relevant factors in her determination of entrapment and abuse of process.

Bruce goes on to say that the RCMP's actions certainly made Nuttall and Korody's bomb plot and actus reus -- Latin for "criminal act" -- more possible.

"Clearly the evidence supports a conclusion that the actions of the police in providing money, tools, a location in which to work, and services to the accused made their commission of the terrorist activity easier or more probable from an objective perspective, and thus constitute the actus reus of the offence."

Bruce also cautions that if police were warned by their legal counsel not to take certain actions but did it anyway, the consequences are serious.

"A finding of illegal acts, standing alone, may not be sufficient to establish an abuse of process warranting a stay of proceedings. However, evidence that the police ignored legal advice or acted contrary to legal advice and, conversely, evidence that the police acted in good faith based on legal advice is relevant to the seriousness of their misconduct, which in turn is relevant to whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered. Illegal acts by the RCMP are also relevant to the entrapment claim."

And Justice Bruce cites the significant case of R. v. Campbell where she cites Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ian Binnie -- and underlines his words for emphasis in her own ruling:

"Police illegality of any description is a serious matter. Police illegality that is planned and approved within the RCMP hierarchy and implemented in defiance of legal advice would, if established, suggest a potential systemic problem concerning police accountability and control. The RCMP position, on the other hand, that the Department of Justice lent its support to an illegal venture may, depending on the circumstances, raise a different but still serious dimension to the abuse of process proceeding," Bruce quotes Binnie.

The judge continues: "[66] I have found that the defence has raised a prima facie case that the RCMP violated s. 83.19 of the (Criminal) Code by providing money, services, and accommodation that helped them to commit terrorist activities. Illegality by the police can support a stay of proceedings based upon entrapment or the wider concept of abuse of process.

"[67] While the question of whether a stay of proceedings is warranted in all of the circumstances is to be determined at the end of the voir dire after all of the evidence is heard, there is a sufficiently close link between the illegal acts committed by the RCMP and the prosecution of the accused to support an abuse of process claim."

"[72] Accordingly, I find that the legal opinions and/or legal advice received by the RCMP in connection with Project Souvenir, in whatever format, must be disclosed under the first stage of the innocence at stake exception to solicitor/client privilege, including advice or opinions as to the following:

"1. What evidence was required to meet the elements of the offences under consideration.

"2. Whether providing money, supplies, and /or transportation to the accused:

"(a) would or may constitute incitement and/or entrapment;
"(b) would or may be unlawful including whether it would constitute facilitating or participating in a criminal act; and/or
"(c) would or may require an authorization under s. 25.1 of the Criminal Code."

Justice Bruce will decide on whether to disclose some or all of the RCMP's legal advice to the defence on Tuesday Nov. 24 by 4 p.m.

But it is Bruce's ultimate decision on whether the RCMP entrapped Nuttall and Korody that will not only determine their fate but also set a precedent for future cases where police "facilitate" criminal activities to stop crime.

So while other police forces around the world battle ISIS, Canada's RCMP will await word from a judge on whether its own officers assisted incompetent, methadone-addled would-be terrorists in such a legally offensive way that it will spring them from jail.

.

The Paris Terrorists Will Never Win - Not if we fight fear, keep travelling, and shelter refugees from terror's vengeful wake

Paris - le Jardin du Luxembourg - Bill Tieleman photo

Why the Paris terror attacks demonstrate the weakness, not strength, of ISIS

Bill Tieleman’s 24 Hours Vancouver / The Tyee column

Tuesday November 17, 2015

By Bill Tieleman

"A walk about Paris will provide lessons in history, beauty, and in the point of life." 

- Thomas Jefferson, third U.S. president, 1743-1826

The Paris terrorists will never win.

Their attack on unarmed civilians in one of the world's most visited cities illustrates their weakness, not their strength.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has claimed responsibility for killing 129 people and wounding 352 in six coordinated attacks.

ISIS got what it wanted through this slaughter -- to instantly dominate the news, sparking enormous concern among people around the world.

I understand that because I have family living in Paris -- my cousin, his wife and daughter -- all thankfully safe, though they live near the site of several attacks, the Place de la Republique.

But indiscriminately murdering innocent people in restaurants, clubs and concert halls before killing themselves with suicide bombs demonstrates the terrorists' inability to win in Iraq, Syria and the Middle East or anywhere else.

They cannot succeed militarily, so they resort to cowardly attacks on "soft targets" -- civilians -- in foreign countries where the very liberty ISIS denies in the small areas it controls in the Middle East makes such massacres possible.

The Paris attacks are sadly echoed by the earlier deadly assaults on the magazine Charlie Hebdo and other sites in that city in January.

But terrorists have used the same approach for centuries, particularly in the recent past.

The infamous Sept. 11, 2001 New York airliner hijackings, the 2002 Bali hotel bombing, the 2004 Madrid train station bombing, and countless others -- all unconscionable massacres.

And yet, have they changed the course of history in the way al-Qaida, ISIS or other terrorists hoped? No.

'Should we fear it? No'

Last week before the Paris attacks, Canada's new Liberal Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan commented about ISIS, with the worst possible timing.

"ISIS is a threat, no doubt about that. Should we fear it? No," said Sajjan, a former army lieutenant-colonel who served in Afghanistan. "The Canadian population should have full confidence in all the security services to keep us safe."

Sajjan is quite correct -- ISIS is a threat, once again exhibiting the same ruthless brutality it used to parade foreign hostages in front of cameras and later behead them.

And Sajjan is also right that we should not fear it.

ISIS's goal with these attacks is simple -- gain global publicity in order to "terrorize" the public and presumably force governments to leave it alone.

While people are horrified, the terror hasn't worked to win its broader goals, nor will it.

ISIS and other terrorist have additional goals: to damage the global economy; to devastate tourism and travel around the world; and to stop aid to refugees fleeing from terror in Syria and Iraq.

And ISIS is fundamentally opposed to the basic tenets of democracy.

In addition to committing barbaric acts of murder, it has blown up historic sites of antiquity that have value to the entire world, such as the destruction of the ancient Temple of Baalshamin in Palmyra, Syria, in August.

Similarly, in the alleged ISIS claim of responsibility for the Paris massacres, the group says the city was targeted because it is a "capital of prostitution and obscenity."

As a regular visitor to Paris, such views are both absurd and offensive. Paris has long been a beacon of civilization, tolerance and culture.

As the late actress Audrey Hepburn said: "Paris is always a good idea."

Keep on travelling

That's why those who value democracy, liberty and freedom around the world must not let ISIS succeed.

Canada's humanitarian effort to help 25,000 Syrian refugees find a better life here must not become another victim of terrorism.

Yes, we must take all appropriate security measures to ensure only legitimate refugees are admitted, as we should with anyone coming to Canada.

But we must not let terrorists frighten us into failing to do the right thing.

Early reports that one of the terrorists had a Syrian refugee passport should not be taken as gospel truth -- the facts will come out in the full investigation, and the trade in stolen and fake passports is enormous.

What's more, remember that those Syrian refugees are the victims of ISIS, not its supporters.

Aaron Zelin, an analyst of jihad, made this central point in response to the fear of some refugees being future terrorists.

"For those who want to blame the attacks on Paris on refugees, you might want to get your facts straight. The reality is, (ISIS) loathes that individuals are fleeing Syria for Europe. It undermines (ISIS's) message that its self-styled caliphate is a refuge," Zelin wrote.

And we must personally not allow ISIS to stop us from seeing the world and its wealth of different cultures.

Add to what Jefferson said above these words from the great American travel guide Rick 

Steves: "We owe it to the victims of this act not to let the terrorist win by being terrorized. 

That's exactly the response they are hoping for... keep on travelling."

Exactly. Je suis Paris. 

.