Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The AIH Transcript for May 10, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol Off.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening. I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight...

CO: Taking charge by adding charges. Donald Trump's new tariffs on billions in Chinese goods did not help talks with the Chinese delegation -- but our guest says the president has a master plan.

JD: Hold court, while being held. The Supreme Court of Canada rules that detained migrants should have the same opportunities as Canadian citizens to challenge their detention in front of a judge.

CO: China flies when you're having fungus. After Denver votes to decriminalize magic mushrooms, a lawyer who helped with the campaign says the chances the same thing will happen elsewhere are extremely high.

JD: If you build it, they will come. The Hebridean island of Ulva is under major renovations in a bid to increase its population exponentially to the excitement of the five people who currently live there.

CO: Odds and ends. A Quebec woman's class action against the lottery commission concludes predictably -- when a court says she can't sue just because she didn't see any of the information explaining her minuscule chances of winning.

JD: And awe inspiring awe. A young boy's single "wow" in a concert hall in Boston has become a global phenomenon -- and his grandmother says she's overwhelmed by the response to his response. As It Happens. The Friday Edition. Radio that knows everybody blurts -- sometimes.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Boy who delighted orchestra with 'wow' has a deep love of music, says grandmother

China U.S. trade

Guest: Clete Willems

JD: Clete Willems' former boss is playing a high-stakes game. Until this month, Mr. Willems was an economic advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump. And among other things, he was one of the point people on trade talks with China. As we go to air those talks have reached a precarious point with Mr. Trump jacking up tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollar’s worth of Chinese goods -- and the Chinese promising to respond in kind. We reached Clete Willems in Washington D.C.

CO: Mr. Willems as you know Donald Trump has more than doubled these tariffs just as negotiations with China seem to have been in their final phase. What is the strategy here?

CLETE WILLEMS: Well look -- the issue is that the president is very focused on getting a deal that addresses core structural issues in China's economy and unfair trading practices that have harmed businesses and workers in the United States and around the world. And the reports out of the talks were that China had been backtracking on some of those very commitments. And I think what the president has signaled is that China needs to include these things as part of a deal. And he is willing to increase pressure on China and take additional action to increase leverage if that doesn't happen.

CO: Okay. But you know China can play hardball too. And you have a situation where these tariffs are not just going to hurt China, they're hurting U.S. importers, consumers -- they're hurting your farmers because there's going to be retaliation. I mean these are huge tariffs and a vast range of goods. So at what point does the United States blink?

CW: There is no question that there is a little bit of short term pain here -- but I think what the administration is doing is weighing that short term pain over what the long term gain could be if China actually opens up its markets, stops engaging in a range of discriminatory practices, and lets companies from around the world compete on a level playing field. I'd also just note in this context that you know there's never a good time to engage in these type of activities -- but the best time to do it is when you have an economy that is growing and thriving in the way that the U.S. economy is right now and can sustain this. I would note that there actually is quite strong bipartisan support for what the administration is doing on China. You know you hear from Chuck Schumer, you would hear from Marco Rubio, you hear from everyone in between encouraging the administration to stay tough -- and I think that that is something that the president is aware of and I think that gives the U.S. additional leverage.

CO: What are you doing for the Canadian interests here? We have somebody that's facing an extradition request from United States meanwhile we have four Canadians in Chinese prisons -- two of them on death row. And our trade with China is collapsing. So are you sticking up for us?

CW: Look I think that's a very unfortunate situation. And I want to start by complimenting the Canadian government for sticking tough on this. It's totally inappropriate what has been happening. And I would say that when I was in government I worked through the G7 and through other fora -- worked very closely with the Canadians. And I think that if we can address some of these problems with China they're going to benefit us both.

CO: Are you speaking up for us at this table -- are you saying "hey back off?"

CW: Well you know that isn't a subject of these negotiations. There are other diplomatic channels through which those kinds of things get communicated. But I think that I can tell you my experience has been that the U.S. administration has been pleased with what Canada has done and has stuck up for them. I was just making the point that in the trade talks themselves where you know my expertise is, is that these are mutually troubling practices by China and resolving them is going to be mutually beneficial to Canadians and Americans alike.

CO: But wait a second here -- we did hear Donald Trump who said that for the right deal he might be willing to drop these charges against this Huawei executive, Meng Wanzhou. So you say it's not on the table, it is not part of this -- well Donald Trump says it is.

CW: Now again I appreciate you asking the question but that isn't something that was on the table while I was a negotiator. It's a judicial matter -- it's outside the context of an economic negotiation.

CO: But I'm pointing out that it is because Donald Trump has put it there and the Chinese have responded in kind to that because they believe 'well there you go -- this is a political issue. She is a bargaining chip.' So Donald Trump has played that card. He's put that into the game.

CW: Look all I can do is speak to my experience while I was sitting at the table -- that wasn't something that we were directly engaging with our Chinese interlocutors.

CO: The other area that people have questioned whether the United States is raising this with the Chinese and again outside of trade but it does have an effect is that you have more than a million ethnic Uyghurs in China who are in re-education camps or in detention -- people are saying, 'are you sticking up for them?' In the midst of this, is the United States saying this is wrong and sticking up for the human rights of people who are being detained in these camps in China?

CW: Well I think that's a deplorable situation. There's been a lot more information coming out about those practices recently. That isn't something that is a direct subject of the trade talks. But I think that the U.S. State Department has been raising that issue with China and highlighting that as something that needs to stop.

CO: But there is a connection because Chinese companies with factories are inside those detention camps. So you could include that as part of the discussions could you not?

CW: Well I suppose as a theoretical matter that that would be possible. But my experience has been that we've been focused more on issues like forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, unfair subsidies to Chinese state owned enterprises and things like that. But other parts of the U.S. government in other fora have been raising the issues you mentioned.

CO: Do you have a date in your mind when you can see China and the United States sitting down to sign a trade agreement?

CW: Well it's hard to say. I mean it really is a fluid situation at the moment. I think that with the backtracking from China we've delayed whatever that date may be. I still think that this can get back on track. There have been other periods of time during the negotiations perhaps not quite so publicly but nonetheless there have been other periods of time during the negotiations where things have seemingly gone in a negative direction -- and the teams were able to get things back on track. There's been a lot of good work that has been done. I hope that this administration is able to reach a solution with China that harvest that could work.

CO: And if the trade talks are not successful they do collapse, then will those tariffs be withdrawn?

CW: I don't have that expectation. I think the president is very serious about trying to address these problems and is going to keep tariffs in place as a means to leverage an outcome.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr. Willems thank you.

CW: It's my pleasure. Thank you for having me on.

JD: Clete Willems is a former trade and economic advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump. We reached him in Washington D.C. earlier today.

[Music]

Supreme Court of Canada detainee decision

Guest: Frances Mahon

JD: He may have already been deported. But today, Tusif Chhina won a victory regarding his detainment by Canadian authorities. In a vote of 6-to-1, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the Pakistani man. It said that he and other detained migrants held for long or indefinite periods of time should be able to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in front of a judge. Frances Mahon is a lawyer with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, which was one of the interveners for Mr. Chhina. We reached Ms. Mahon in Vancouver.

CO: Ms. Mahon what does today's ruling mean for thousands of detainees who are held in Canada each year?

FRANCES MAHON: It's a broad recognition by the Supreme Court of Canada that people who are illegally detained in jail should always have access to remedies that are going to help them be released.

CO: But they do have a lot of remedies. Why was habeas corpus recognized by the Supreme Court as something that they weren't getting that they needed?

FM: Habeas corpus is one of the oldest remedies in the common law legal system used by prisoners to get their case before the court if there's a question around the legality of their detention. And what the decision from the Supreme Court today recognizes is that the procedures under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are simply not enough for prisoners to question the legality of their detention.

CO: All right I guess we can understand this better if we know more about the case and the man at the centre of it. What can you tell us about Mr. Chhina?

FM: He was originally from Pakistan and came to Canada as a refugee. His refugee status was taken away from him. And CBSA was trying to effect his removal from Canada. And they couldn't get the right travel documents to actually remove him from Canada. And on that basis he was detained in custody for many years. And this gets at the root of the Supreme Court's decision today is that habeas corpus isn't going to be available to everyone in immigration detention. It's going to be available for folks like Mr. Chhina whose detention is lengthy and of an uncertain duration.

CO: As far as we can understand, Mr. Chhina was granted refugee protection in Canada back in 2006 but he lost that protected status because he had an undeclared criminal record -- possession of a prohibited weapon, forgery, and fraud. So did that come up at all in this habeas corpus discussion?

FM: That wasn't the central issue before the Supreme Court of Canada. And the fact is that many people who are in immigration detention have never actually committed any crimes. People can be detained if CBSA isn't able to establish their identity for example. And that happens for a lot of people who are maybe fleeing war torn countries and it creates all sorts of problems for them down the road and usually results in their detention while CBSA tries to sort that out.

CO: And so he was detained because he was regarded as a flight risk, right? That if they didn't lock him up -- that he might just disappear and he wouldn't be found. Was that the concern do you think?

FM: I believe that was the concern. I was not his counsel or present for those earlier proceedings. So for my client the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association what's really important and what's really at the heart of this case is that people who are in jail for long long periods of time when there's no end date on that detention -- need to have this access to broad remedies. And this is what we've seen the Supreme Court of Canada underline today. If you don't have a way to get your case heard by a court or by a tribunal then you don't really have access to any justice at all.

CO: How might things have been different for Mr. Chhina had he had access to habeas corpus?

FM: Well habeas corpus is a really advantageous remedy for folks during custody because all they need to do is raise a question about the legality of their detention, file an application in Superior Courts, and then the onus shifts to the jailer to prove that they are in fact in custody legally. So that means that for the actual detained person they don't need to do all of that upfront work. And that's in contrast to the procedures that happen at the Immigration and Refugee Board where the detained person is the one that has to file all the evidence and make all those arguments there. The other advantage of habeas corpus is that it's a very quick remedy. It's usually given priority over all other types of cases that courts are hearing. So that means that you can get in front of a court sometimes as fast as in 24 hours. And if the court agrees with you that you are being illegally detained you're going to be released right away.

CO: You won this case in the Supreme Court -- 6-to-1. What was the dissenting judge's view of this?

FM: So Justice Abella dissented, and her dissent is actually quite interesting. Her dissent says that we should be doing a very broad and expansive reading of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so that people who are detained can actually take advantage of these remedies. What she's not saying is that it's working great now. She's saying Immigration and Refugee Board 'you need to get it together and make sure that you're applying your statute in a way that's charter compliance' -- and then that will be good enough to help folks who are in jail. My view and the view of my client the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is that for people who are illegally detained they should have access to any possible remedy that's out there to question that detention. And that was what the majority decision agreed with.

CO: And the case you brought before the Supreme Court of this man -- Mr. Chhina -- a man who was granted refugee protection, had a criminal record, fled custody. Was he really the best case you could bring forward? I wonder how representative he is of the other migrants and refugees who are being detained for such long times.

FM: I would say anecdotally that I would put him in the smallest category of people. The one exception to that would be the length of his detention and the uncertainty around how long he's going to remain in custody. I don't think that most people who are appearing before the Immigration Division have criminal records like that. And it doesn't matter if you've committed crimes or not -- if you're being held illegally in jail, you should be able to access remedies to get you out of jail no matter who you are or no matter what the facts were in that original case.

CO: We'll leave it there. Ms. Mahon thank you.

FM: Thank you so much for having me.

JD: Frances Mahon is a lawyer for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. We reached her in Vancouver.

[Music]

'Wow' orchestra follow-up

Guest: Claire Mattin

JD: First it echoed through a concert hall. Now the "wow" has been heard all over the world. And now the little voice behind that powerful moment has a name: Ronan Mattin. You may have heard about it on our program earlier this week. On Sunday at the Boston Symphony Hall, the 9-year-old reacted with wonder to the performance of a piece by Mozart. Here's what it sounded like.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music: Mozart's "Masonic Funeral Music"]

[Boy says wow]

[Audience laughs and applauds]

JD: After that, the orchestra put out a call to find the boy. And it worked: we now know it was 9-year-old Ronan Mattin. Claire Mattin is Ronan's grandmother. We reached her in Kensington, New Hampshire.

CO: Claire as you know people all over the place have been going crazy about that captivating "wow." What was your reaction when you first heard the recording?

CLAIRE MATTIN: Oh it just sent a chill down my spine. It was kind of funny because the day of the concert Stephan came home and he told the story about how Ronan gave out this big "wow" in the middle of all the silence. And it was just a funny story -- it was another Ronan story. He's quite a guy. But when I heard the recording -- oh my.

CO: Stephan is your husband -- he is (Ronan's) grandpa -- and grandpa was taking Ronan to Boston Symphony Hall to hear that concert. Just take us back to Sunday. Was Ronan pretty excited about going to the concert?

CM: Oh yes Ronan was very excited. He loves music. And Stephan especially makes it a point to take him to anything that's musical. So he was very excited. He had gone to a concert in Boston a few weeks before and that was all he talked about. So when my husband told him that he was going to a concert on Sunday he was, "Yes! Concert." He wanted to go and he knows the way to Boston. He said, yes 95 to 46 -- and we go to Boston.

CO: And this wasn't like 1812 overture or something. It's not something with a lot of bangs and bells and whistles and stuff. What do you think it was about that touched him so much?

CM: Well I think that he picks up on the emotional tone of the music, you know. And he gets into it -- he is involved. When he's listening to music at home, he's dancing around and pretending to conduct -- it just moves him, it gets to him more than a lot of other things that we do with him to try to bring him out.

CO: When you say try to bring him out, what are you referring to?

CM: Well he is on the autism spectrum. He's mostly non-verbal. So for him to emotionally express his feelings with the word was amazing.

CO: That's all the more touching and wonderful about the story that that's the case. So how often does he express himself in this way?

CM: We've maybe heard it four or five times.

CO: Wow!

CM: Yes exactly. Exactly.

CO: And it's such a clear recording, isn't it? And just in that dead silence that it's a convention -- unwritten rule -- when you go to hear a symphony orchestra that you stop in classical music -- you don't say nothing at all, you give it this moment of silence, and then there's the applause. But just to fill that moment -- everybody else obviously was thinking it -- was so extraordinary, wasn't it?

CM: Yeah. And you know again at the time as it was happening my husband his immediate reaction was oh no -- you know they're going to kick us out. But then right away everyone started laughing and applauding. And Stephan realized that it was well accepted and he relaxed.

CO: How did you come to learn that the orchestra was actually looking for him?

CM: My sister saw an article in one of the local newspapers, she lives in Massachusetts. And she called me right away because I had told her the story and she said that's got to be Ronan. And she sent me the link to the article with the little sound clip in -- and I said yeah I'd recognize his voice anywhere and that's him. And then there was an email address for a David Snead who is the CEO I guess. And I sent him an email, told him it was my grandson, and he got right back to me. He called me. He said that it was just the most wonderful thing that's happened to him in the 40 years that he's been with H+H Society. And that was emotional. You know the whole week has been a rollercoaster ride.

CO: So what has he offered?

CM: Well what he told me was that the conductor that night has gone back to England which is his home but he will be back in October -- and at that time they're going to invite Ronan and the family to go back to Symphony Hall, and for Ronan to meet the conductor and some of the musicians, and then give the family a front row seat to the show.

CO: And what will that mean for Ronan do you think?

CM: Ronan will be very excited. We can tell him ahead of time that we're going back to the symphony. But to tell him he's going to meet the conductor -- I don't think that'll really click with him until he's there and actually meeting him and maybe touching his baton, his wand. That's what will thrill him.

CO: Would he be able to get on stage and touch the musical instruments? That would probably mean something too.

CM: Yeah. Oh yeah. He would. I'd send him up with his dad who would keep him from destroying anything. But he just wants to touch stuff. My husband had him at a shaker festival that was going on and I think the day before the symphony and there was someone playing fiddle and Ronan just walked away from Stephen and went up to this woman and he started touching her fiddle. She was very nice and let him handle the bow and stuff. And yeah this is what excites him. This is who he is.

CO: Well Ronan sounds like a very special boy. I have to say his grandparents sound pretty special too.

CM: Oh thank you. You know we love both of them. He has a sister -- and we just love both of them to death.

CO: I understand. Claire thank you.

CM: Thank you.

JD: Claire Mattin is Ronan Mattin's grandmother. We reached her in Kensington, New Hampshire. And we have more on this story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Toothpaste

JD: In ancient Greece, Hippocrates offered an easy way to care for one's teeth: simply get one's self the severed heads of one rabbit and three mice, set them on fire, pound the scorched heads into charcoal powder, and then rub that powder all over the inside of your mouth. And that is the historical basis for today's modern charcoal toothpastes. Now in case you're not following the latest trends in wellness -- charcoal toothpaste is now a vital bathroom accessory. It is made from burned stuff -- coconut shells or bamboo, for example -- and then activated by being heated to extremely high temperatures. The result is a disturbing black goo. But here's the good news, it is antibacterial and or anti-fungal and will detoxify your mouth and whiten your teeth and re-mineralized your teeth and prevent them from getting cavities. But here's the bad news: no, it won't, to all of the above. Despite the claims of various charcoal toothpaste manufacturers who've made all those promises about their product. A new study in the British Dental Journal concludes the black stuff is a, quote, "marketing gimmick." That it's lack of fluoride means it offers only limited protection from tooth decay. That tiny charcoal bits could get stuck in your gums or fillings causing irritation. And that brushing with it too much could actively damage your teeth. Well that is genuinely too bad if you're looking for a toothpaste that's all natural and has a basis in history. But it could be worse: in ancient Rome they had a tooth whitening system that was even grosser than pulverized burnt rodent heads. They were advised to rinse their mouths out with their own -- ahh well let me put it this way, it wasn't so much DIY as Pee I Y.

[Music]

Part 2: Scottish isle of Ulva, population 5, makes pitch to grow community

Magic mushrooms

Guest: Noah Potter

JD: The mile-high city is blazing a trail once again. This week Denver, Colorado, voted to decriminalize magic mushrooms -- or more specifically, psilocybin, that being the active ingredient in magic mushrooms. A grassroots campaign pushed to add the proposal to the local election ballot. Noah Potter is a lawyer who helped draft the ballot initiative. We reached Mr. Potter in New York City.

CO: Mr. Potter how high are you feeling right now after this victory?

NOAH POTTER: I'm feeling good. I'm feeling good. And people in the psychedelic scene are very happy. This is the kind of thing for which I've been working for about 30 years or so.

CO: And when you say 'psychedelic scene' -- what are you referring to?

NP: What we see now is a constituency of voters that are supportive of access to -- safe and legal -- access to psychedelics frequently. And I would venture to say -- although not empirically based -- a good portion of those people are people who had personal experience with psychedelics. So there's a psychedelic subculture that hasn't really made it onto the map of public consciousness, of sociological awareness, and so on.

CO: Do you think this vote -- this decision -- in Denver puts it on the map?

NP: I do. I do. The initiative itself puts it on the map. You see something that was totally off the radar that I suspect most people didn't expect because people are largely unaware of psychedelics. They aren't familiar with psychedelics generally. And there is certainly a psychedelic subculture.

CO: We'll get to the psychedelic subculture in a moment. But what does this actually mean in terms of magic mushrooms in Denver?

NP: Well on the books it means that the employees of the City of Denver are disempowered from acting against people for possession, use, and cultivation of small amounts of psychoactive mushrooms. So we anticipate that the police will be disempowered from investigating and arresting and contemplate that the district attorney will be disempowered from prosecuting.

CO: For people who -- you're saying it's not on people's radar. Yep. You're right about that. People I don't think -- unless you're in that subculture you described -- I don't think people have thought much about this. So what does it do? What kind of a high do you get from magic mushrooms?

NP: Yeesh. Well it really depends on the dosage which is actually a very very critical consideration. Let's say that you're talking about what is called a heroic dose -- that experience lasts, could be six to eight hours long. There's a gradual buildup and a peak then a sort of a slow and gradual return to normal waking consciousness or normative consciousness I should say. An initial feeling, there's something a little bit different -- sounds are a little bit different, visual perception is a little bit different. It can be a sense that things are moving. Still objects are oscillating. Lights can radiate. A normal white light in your living room -- your ceiling light -- will look more like a prism. And you have a halo of sort of rainbow colours or something like that -- in like a prism. Objects can look as if they're melting but sort of like an ongoing melting. If you were to look at something melting but it doesn't really melt -- the liquid kind of recycles back into solid form. I mean it can certainly go farther. There's a change in perception of time. Time can feel as if it's contracting or expanding -- and each moment can feel like an eternity. And then you get the sense that time is contracting -- things are happening very fast, and you don't remember how long ago it was that you began the trip.

CO: Wow! It's quite an experience. So how much demand was there in Denver for this to be decriminalized?

NP: I can't speak to the demand. Although my understanding is that there was sufficient really excited positive response to the volunteers -- the outreach volunteers -- getting signatures that there seems to be a pretty robust population of people in Denver who have experienced mushrooms and are aficionados.

CO: And do you think now that it's been decriminalized more people in Denver will start using magic mushrooms?

NP: Well that's really a key consideration -- a key policy question. And I personally suspect that there will be an increase if only because of the greater media attention. I mean this has made national and international news -- as you are calling me from outside the United States...

CO: Yeah people are curious now about this.

NP: And you see in the mass media that the news outlets are trying to explain what psilocybin is for the first time. To explain to majority population (who have) never heard of it. People have heard of heroin. People have heard of cocaine. People have heard of cannabis. We've heard of LSD. So that's sort of a representative hallucinogens quote unquote hallucinogen. But psilocybin mushrooms -- psychedelic mushrooms -- like what is that? So I would be willing to hazard that there is a strong possibility of an increase. I should say psilocybin mushrooms are rather nauseating depending on how strong your stomach is. They're not pleasant to eat. They are foul tasting. It's not like candy. But people will be curious and want to experiment. And that then goes into the question of how this change in policy is implemented which is really a key consideration at this point -- how to do harm reduction and education and planning so that people are familiar with these very powerful substance.

CO: All right we'll leave it there Mr. Potter thank you.

NP: Thank you very much for reaching out to discuss this important topic.

JD: Noah Potter is a lawyer and psychedelics policy consultant. He helped to draft a ballot initiative to decriminalize magic mushrooms in Denver, Colorado. We reached him in New York City. And you can find more on this story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Deanne Burleigh

JD: A 16-month-old boy has died in Burnaby, British Columbia. Police say it is because he was left in a car for several hours yesterday in the heat. The province is experiencing unusually warm weather this week with temperatures rising above 20 degrees Celsius. No arrests have been made and police say the parents are cooperating. Here is Burnaby RCMP Chief Superintendent Deanne Burleigh, speaking at a press conference earlier today.

SOUNDCLIP

DEANNA BURLEIGH: We had a tragedy in our community: a 16-month-old infant died after being left unattended for several hours in a vehicle in the area of Kingsway Avenue in Inman street. It is an extremely tragic event. And we felt it important today to talk to you and to drive home the point and the message about leaving children unattended in vehicles especially as the weather heats up. That's the message that we wanted to send today is about leaving the children unattended in the vehicles. Speaking as a parent, as a police officer, as a human, the only way to prevent this is regardless of fatigue regardless of how many things you have on the go in your world at any given point -- the child is the focus of your attention and your care until they are put into the care and attention of another individual. It's about diligence -- vigilance. We all get tired, we're all exhausted at certain points -- it's about taking that extra time. It's tragic. It's horrible. There's no words to describe what anybody would be feeling right now. Any of the first responders who attended. Anybody at the hospital who attended. Any of the family members. It's absolutely tragic.

REPORTER: What is the next step in this investigation?

DEANNA BURLEIGH: We continue to build timelines and determine if there is any other investigative avenues that we have to go down.

JD: That was Burnaby, British Columbia RCMP Chief Superintendent Deanne Burleigh speaking about the death of a toddler who was left in a car yesterday. No arrests have been made.

[Music]

Scottish Isle repopulation

Guest: Rebecca Munro

JD: The inner Hebridean island of Ulva, off the west coast of the Scottish mainland, may be small but it has a very strong -- very tight knit community. So tightly knit in fact that four-fifths of the entire population lives under the same roof. That would be the roof that Rebecca Munro shares with her husband, Rhuri, and two children. Last year however it was purchased by a community trust with help from the Scottish government for just over four and a half million pounds. That is about eight point one million Canadian dollars. And now there are big changes coming to Ulva. Changes that Rebecca and her family welcome and that they hope will increase its population tenfold. We reached Rebecca Munro on Ulva at the Boathouse Restaurant which she owns and runs with her sister-in-law.

CO: Rebecca why would anyone want to live on Ulva? Give us your best pitch.

REBECCA MUNRO: Oh! I'll try my best -- that was a tricky one. I think it's just a really special place to live. It obviously has a spectacular scenery, wildlife. The ferry stops at five o'clock.

CO: The ferry stops at five o'clock. That's it. There's no getting in or off after that.

RM: No -- unless you've got your own boat. So it's nice because you get the peace and quiet. And especially for us, we're bringing up two children here and they get freedom here that they wouldn't have anywhere else that they can go out and play for hours at a time and just enjoy the outdoors and we don't have to worry about that. There's no traffic. And yeah it's quite a unique experience living here.

CO: Your husband is from Ulva. Is that right?

RM: Yeah that's right. So my husband grew up on the island. And when he was growing up here there was about 35 people on the island and of course now it's down to only five. And so there was more of a community then, and there was parties, suppers, and a lot more children around. And that's definitely something that we'd like to get back to.

CO: Five people on the island. Four of them are the members of your family. You moved there with your husband 13 years ago and you've had two children since then.

RM: Yeah yeah that's right. So even when I moved here at first there was 12 people in total. So it just continued to decline since then. But yeah we would like some more people. So there's more than just us here.

CO: Well it sounds like a lovely place. And I understand that it went up for sale. What was the risk? You were living there when the family that actually owns Ulva -- which we should say just not very far from the Isle of Mull, right?

RM: Yeah that's right. So it's within swimming distance from Mull -- so you get a short ferry over -- it's only about 90 seconds from the ferry. So it's not far at all.

CO: But the family that owns it decided they're going to sell. And who were the likely purchasers -- the prospects for that sale?

RM: Yeah so we actually found out that the isle was going to be sold from this photographer who came to take pictures from the sales brochure. And so we didn't actually know before that. But then when the island was going on the market, some helicopter landed with people looking at the island. So we had people from the Middle East and Russia and a lot of foreign interest in buying the island. And unfortunately the way that the island was marketed was kind of like an island getaway playground. And it became apparent to us that we probably would be evicted as tenants and the island would be closed to the public and would just be a private holiday island basically.

CO: Good heavens. And so how did you manage to pull the money together to buy the island then?

RM: Yes we are really lucky in Scotland that there's legislation that exists that gives communities the right to buy land if they're able to raise the money. And we also have I think it is called the Scottish Land Fund. And every year they have 10 million pounds that they can allocate to communities to purchase land for the benefit of the community. So we put in an application to them and we were amazed -- they give us 95 percent of the purchase price. And then we also received a donation of half a million pounds from the Macquarie group -- their [inaudible] investment bank because obviously Lachlan Macquarie -- the father of Australia to some -- him and his family they came from Ulva. So we were lucky with that connection that we were able to raise that extra money.

CO: I understand the Howard family -- the family that owned the island, that was selling it -- was not happy about this. They didn't want to sell to you.

RM: No. They wanted to sell the island privately so that's why we had to use the legislation and the laws that we have in Scotland. So you can't force anyone to sell but as a community if you're application for a community right to buy is successful, you have first refusal and you have eight months to put together the money to buy the island. So yeah it was a shame for us. We tried to approach them and tried to buy the island from them in a more civilized way, but unfortunately that wasn't something they were interested in.

CO: Well congratulations on that. And now you are the proud owners of an island. And so you want it to be repopulated -- you've tried to attract people. What do you tell them they could do or how they could live on Ulva?

RM: Well I think there's a lot of opportunity here for either people who have existing businesses or people who work from home like agriculture and fashion back here -- and also we have quite a good mobile phone network so we have 4G internet speed. So that opens up a lot of opportunities for people running businesses from the island or also people who might live on Ulva and work on Mull. So basically we're just open to any ideas that people have that they think that they could work from here.

CO: You have no stores, no shops of any kind, right?

RM: No. The restaurant that I run with my sister-in-law that currently is the only business on the island. So our primary skill is on Mul with the doctors and the shops. So I think that's something anyone who was living here would have to be aware of is that you can't just walk down the road to go and get milk or you know. So you need to plan ahead a bit with your shopping and things like that.

CO: But where would they live? What kind of housing is there?

RM: So we've got existing houses that are empty. There's six existing residential houses as well as former owner's house and another house that was used as functions. So we're looking to do them up first as well as -- buildings and new housing too.

CO: So you need some handy people there -- who need to be able to know how to do a bit of work.

RM: Yeah definitely. Maybe some builders, electricians, that would be handy.

CO: Any Hebrideans whose families moved to Canada that are thinking of moving back to Ulva?

RM: I think we had a few applications from Canadians. Yeah. But I mean Canada is such an amazing place. It's quite different then Ulva.

CO: Well Ulva seems like an amazing too Rebecca and I wish you great success with life there and thank you for speaking with us.

RM: It was lovely to talk to you. Thank you.

JD: Rebecca Munro lives on the Inner Hebridean island of Ulva in Scotland. She accounts for one-fifth of the island's population which they are hoping will grow to a whopping 50 residents over the next few years. Before you pack your bags you can see some photographs of Ulva on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Lotto

JD: You pay into something long enough, you want to return. Fair's fair. That's kind of the premise of a Quebec woman's class action. For 20 years, she invested and she invested and she got back no compensation whatsoever. I mean how is she supposed to know her odds of being compensated were about one in 14 million at best. No one told her. And so she filed a class action suit against a lot of Quebec because in 20 years of buying 649 tickets and several years of buying Lotto Max tickets she did not get back anywhere near what she had put in. Furthermore she said Lotto Quebec never told her that she had such a tiny chance of winning. If it had, she claimed, she would never have played. And for its misrepresentation she sought to have Lotto Quebec pay back all of its profits over a three year period plus 150 million dollars in damages. Now to most of us who have only ever won a free ticket in the lottery and been happy when that happens -- her case really feels valid in our hearts. But you know those legal people and their heartless reliance on facts. Well yesterday, some of those legal people specifically Quebec's Court of Appeal rejected her case completely. In doing so they upheld a superior court judge's previous decision. According to The Canadian Press that judge said her class action, quote, "had no chance of success because the allegations were too vague or were contradicted by evidence including the fact the odds were printed on the back of tickets and in promotional material produced for the court." Ah ha, see? So you're saying that just because every ticket that she bought actually did reveal her extremely low chances of winning, she loses yet again? That...oh okay, I guess I kind of get it. Anyway she can't really be too surprised, can she? Because she's been taking risks for years and none of them paid off.

[Music]

James Comey

JD: When James Comey was fired as director of the FBI he found out the big news from a CNN headline while speaking in front of a crowd. Exactly two years later, Mr. Comey joined CNN host Anderson Cooper for a town hall last night to talk about that moment and more. Much of the discussion focused as you might imagine on President Donald Trump whom Mr. Comey described as a, quote, "amoral leader" who, quote, "eats your soul in small bites." And he also had some choice words for Attorney General William Barr.

SOUNDCLIP

JAMES COMEY: He did a very good thing in offering transparency. Most of the report is unredacted so we could see it. And then I think he acted in a way that's less than honourable in the way he described it in writing and described it during a press conference and continues to talk as if he's the president's lawyer. That is not the attorney general's job. It's a political appointment by the president. But you lead an institution that belongs to the American people and not the president.

ANDERSON COOPER: You think he's behaving less than honourably?

JAMES COMEY: I do. Yeah [applause]. He's an accomplished and very smart person and who had nothing to lose in taking this job but his reputation. But I really -- it doesn't make me happy to say this but I think he has lost most of his reputation with the way he's conducted himself.

ANDERSON COOPER: Do you think he did commit perjury?

JAMES COMEY: I don't know. He certainly gave misleading testimony. Perjury is a hard thing to prove and it should be. (It) Requires a very specific intent. You know you're lying when you utter those words and it leaves lots of room below that for people to give lawyerly narrow answers. My view of it is I think that the most reasonable conclusion is he was giving a very lawyerly narrow answer. On the face of it, it doesn't look to me like he committed perjury but I hope that's not the standard for the attorney general testifying in front of Congress. The Department Justice has a duty of candor to the courts and to Congress. The testimony was not candid. Whether it was perjurious, is a much higher bar and it doesn't look to me like he's across that.

JD: Mr. Comey was also asked to weigh in on how Democrats should balance politics and principles when it comes to impeaching President Trump -- something the former FBI director said he was not qualified to answer.

SOUNDCLIP

JAMES COMEY: I kind of hope there isn't an impeachment because I think it will leave us in a situation where we're kind of off the hook. We need an election where the American people stand up and say look we got important differences over immigration and guns and abortion --really important issues that we should respect difference on -- but we have something in common that's not negotiable. Our president must reflect the values of this country. Our president must tell the truth. [Applause] And there's a lot of pain and polarization in this country. But I hope that's something that can unite Democrats, Republicans, and independents. And so there ought to be a moment of inflection that falls on us -- the American voters. And in a way an impeachment process might derail that and let us off the hook and we don't deserve to be let off the hook.

JD: James Comey who is of course the former director of the FBI. He was speaking with CNN's Anderson Cooper in a special town hall last night.

[Music]

Jeopardy

JD: For 22 games, James Holzhauer has dominated Jeopardy. He has broken record after record. He has sparked heated debate about his strategy which basically is that he's really good at gambling. Calgarian Jeff Henderson got to see that up close and personal. He faced off against Mr. Holzhauer during his record breaking run. And then he spoke with host Doug Dirks on CBC's "Homestretch" about the experience.

SOUNDCLIP

JEFF HENDERSON: I can tell you that on a day of Jeopardy they tape five games. On the second game, he beat the highest score of all time -- set the record. And didn't just kind of beat that record, he shattered it. The previous record was 77,000. It had been there for a decade and he went and got 110,000. And people were losing their minds -- I've never seen anything like this. And then they called my name -- it's your turn to go up.

DOUG DIRKS: [Laughs] No pressure. So what was going through your mind as you were sitting there watching him crush the record and you're up next?

JEFF HENDERSON: Yeah. All of the people in that player's pool were just -- we felt like the soldiers in the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan, just shaking in our boots knowing what was coming.

DOUG DIRKS: So you obviously didn't win, but what was it like competing against Holzhauer?

JEFF HENDERSON: It really was a blur. He is so fast on that buzzer and so good in every way. It was like going through a washing machine. And it also was just like incredible to be in awe of what I'm witnessing while also being destroyed by it.

DOUG DIRKS: Well I was going to say so what was it like for you to try and concentrate as all of this was unfolding? And you know the answers are coming up on the board and you've got to come up with questions, you've got to you know buzz in and try and beat this guy. Were you mesmerized to a certain degree?

JEFF HENDERSON: Well yes because you are in the show you've seen since growing up. It is like seeing yourself suddenly in like the Full House house or like some other fictional universe and suddenly you're in it and everything happens in real time which feels five times faster when you're actually in it.

DOUG DIRKS: So you're having an out of body experience?

JEFF HENDERSON: Absolutely.

DOUG DIRKS: It was like you were watching from above?

JEFF HENDERSON: Yes. That's exactly what it felt like.

DOUG DIRKS: And how did you do on the show?

JEFF HENDERSON: I owe Alex Trebek six hundred dollars. [Laughter]

DOUG DIRKS: He has got to come to Calgary to collect. [Laughter]

JEFF HENDERSON: Well I don't know. I'm going to lay low for a little.

DOUG DIRKS: All right. So you're minus 600. And how did Holzhauer do on that show?

JEFF HENDERSON: He was like sixty thousand or something.

JD: That was one-time Jeopardy contestant, Jeff Henderson, speaking with CBC Calgary's "The Homestretch" yesterday.

[Music]

Part 3: Beer-brewing Belgian monks in legal battle to protect well water from mining

Iran sanctions: E.U.

Guest: Nathalie Tocci

JD: Tensions are on the rise between the U.S. and Iran. That has left the European Union scrambling to salvage the international agreement that has kept Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. On Wednesday, Iran's president threatened to withdraw from parts of the so-called JCPOA unless the Europeans can find a way to protect his country from crippling U.S. sanctions. Meanwhile the Trump administration has added fresh sanctions to its list and is deploying a carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf. Nathalie Tocci is an advisor to the EU's top diplomat Federica Mogherini. We reached Ms. Tocci in Rome.

CO: Ms. Tocci how high are the stakes right now for those trying to de-escalate things between the United States and Iran?

NATHALIE TOCCI: Well the stakes are sky high particularly for Europe -- the European Union -- for a number of reasons. I mean clearly the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action i.e. the Iranian nuclear deal is a key element in the global non-proliferation regime that obviously sets a precedent. It is a key element contributing to Middle East security or at the very least not to exacerbate further Middle East insecurity. And then finally -- and to have some say even most importantly -- it is a key case that ultimately proves that multilateralism, multilateral diplomacy, and international law actually deliver and still can deliver. And obviously without these elements we could not have a rules based international system that we're all so attached to.

CO: Okay. But it seems that the White House and in particular U.S. national security advisor John Bolton thinks that what they're doing being tough with Iran and imposing these sanctions increasing them, is working -- and you're not. And the White House said because of our action the Iranian regime is struggling to fund its campaign of violent terror as its economy heads into an unprecedented depression. They seem convinced that they are doing the right thing and that you're not. What do you say to them?

NT: Well I would say that the point really here is that we have fundamentally different objectives. The objectives of the European Union as far as with the JCPOA is concerned is part of the containment of the Iranian nuclear program and that is in and of itself the aim. We do not have any hidden aims. The point of the Trump administration first and foremost which is John Bolton who you cite is actually a fundamentally different take. The start of a regime collapse in Iran. And what is very clear is the fact that in fact some of the non-renewal of the sanctions waivers of the United States actually make it impossible for Iran to comply with the JCPOA. So to answer the question: is the U.S. strategy aimed at a regime collapse in Iran actually delivering? Well frankly speaking I don't see an Iranian regime on the verge of collapse. I didn't see Iranian strategy in the Middle East -- Iranian foreign policy in the Middle East -- actually having changed over the last year. So not only would I say that the European Union and the United States seem to differ -- not simply in terms of strategy but in terms of actual aim. But even taking the U.S. aim of regime collapse in Iran, it doesn't seem to me to be delivering at all.

CO: And some have gone further than what you're saying and saying the objectives of the United States and John Bolton is to start a war with Iran -- that this escalation is hoping that the Iranians will make a bad move and that it will justify some kind of a strike. Do you think that's possible?

NT: I don't think it's possible because to be honest I don't think the United States has the military capability of actually conducting a war in Iran.

CO: What? I mean this the most powerful military. They've done it in other countries in the Middle East. Why couldn't they do it in Iran?

NT: I mean they can certainly go to war. The point is that will they be able to win it. I mean they haven't exactly been able to win a war in Iraq and it's a country that is incomparably smaller and weaker. So I don't think that it is a realistic objective. Now of course you're absolutely right in saying that ultimately if diplomacy -- if that is excluded as a possibility then the road is opened leading up to war. And this is actually precisely the reason why Europeans are so concerned about the current escalation and why we are ultimately not only insisting that the United States that this can only lead to many tears but we are also trying to persuade the Iranians that it is actually not in their interest either to fuel further and ultimately to play the U.S. game because this is what it's all about.

CO: And that's what I guess people are suggesting that John Bolton is counting on -- that they will stumble into this and that there will be a reason for some kind of an intervention.

NT: I think you're absolutely right. This is what Bolton actually would probably like to see happen. I mean ultimately we're talking about someone who has not had these views on Iran over the last year. I mean you know there's a track record there that dates back to the Bush administration. So clearly this is the intention. Now you know to sort of give an optimistic sense of all of this -- I actually think that this is crystal clear to the Iranians too. And in fact although President Rouhani has actually mentioned that Iran is no longer willing to simply abide by its side of the deal if the other side is not willing to do its bit, but actually if one reads what Rouhani actually said we're not actually talking about Iranians actually restarting their nuclear program in a significant way at least not yet. We at least have not only 60 days I would say probably 120 days to actually be able to do something that demonstrates to the Iranians that we can actually deliver on our side of the bargain.

CO: Your side of the bargain -- the European Union is trying to keep this nuclear agreement alive despite the United States. But it causes all kinds of grief, doesn't it? Europeans who do trade, who do interact with Iran face possible sanctions when they try to do the same in the United States. To what degree are Europeans willing to stand up to Donald Trump and to John Bolton?

NT: Well it's a political question and it's a technical question. I wouldn't be [inaudible] all the technical dimensions of this because getting what is known as instincts so basically the special purpose financial vehicle that would allow for trade between Europe and Iran -- I mean this is a pretty complex endeavor. But of course the main stumbling block is a political one. To what extent are we actually willing to take the wrath basically of the United States. Now I'm of the conviction that quite aside from the Iranian question a healthy transatlantic partnership between Europe and the United States actually rests upon Europeans affirming gradually greater autonomy and responsibility and ultimately -- not obviously under this particular U.S. administration -- the United States increasingly respecting Europeans for it. It is clear that the asymmetric relationship which has basically been at the heart of the transatlantic relationship for the last 70 years cannot go on in the next 70 years because today we're talking about Iran. What if tomorrow the United States decides to impose extraterritorial sanctions on non EU trade with China for instance because of a trade war between the United States and China escalating to that degree -- what would we do then? So it's clear that quite aside from the question the JCPOA in Iran today we really do need to actually grow up and affirm our own autonomy if we actually do want to continue to project and promote our interests and values at both at home and in the world.

CO: All right. A lot at stake here. Mr. Tocci I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

NT: Thank you very much.

JD: Nathalie Tocci is an advisor to the EU's top diplomat Federica Mogherini. We reached Ms. Tocci in Rome. And we have more on that story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Victory in Europe Day

JD: It was supposed to be an opportunity for reflection. It became a time for apologies. Earlier this week, Veterans Affairs Canada posted a video commemorating the 74th anniversary of VE Day -- or Victory in Europe Day. The video which features Veterans Affairs Minister Lawrence MacAulay pays tribute to Canadians who served in the Second World War.

SOUNDCLIP

LAWRENCE MACAULAY: May 8th marks the 74th anniversary of the Allied victory in Europe during the Second World War. More than a million Canadian men and women served in this bitter conflict. Of those -- over 45,000 gave their lives in the defense of peace and freedom. Today, we take time to reflect on the courage shown by the members of our armed forces more than seven decades ago. Lest we forget.

JD: Well there is very little chance that critics will forget that video -- that's for sure because instead of featuring brave Canadians, officials inadvertently included footage of Nazi forces. Veterans Affairs has since pulled the video and apologized. And that did not however prevent Conservative MPs Dane Lloyd and Michael Barrett from challenging Veterans Affairs Minister Lawrence MacAulay about it.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: This year Canada commemorates 74 years of Victory in Europe -- a day to remember our defeat of the Nazi empire. This is a day to honour those who gave their lives. And yet after carelessness on the Minister's part, Canadians were shocked to see German soldiers on ads to celebrate our Canadian warriors. How many levels of vetting did these ads go through? And how did the Minister and his office allow these careless and offensive ads to go forward?

VOICE 2: This was a completely unacceptable mistake and the video was removed immediately. I can assure you I and the people involved are very concerned and we are taking steps to make sure this does not happen again. But Mr. Speaker what we want to do and make sure is that it does not detract from the message. The message is 74 years ago this week our soldiers liberated Europe. That is the important message and we will make sure that this type of thing with this ad never happens again.

VOICE 1: Our veterans, their families, and Canadians deserve better. Saying it won't happen again is one thing. Will the minister stand and apologize to veterans?

VOICE 2: First Mr. Speaker I would do anything I could for our veterans including apologize for the likes to this to happen. This is totally unacceptable. And as I said we will make sure that this will not happen again.

JD: From earlier today, that was Veterans Affairs Minister Lawrence MacAuley apologizing for a recent video commemorating victory in Europe Day -- VE Day -- which inadvertently included footage of Nazi soldiers.

[Music]

Alabama Legislature

JD: Earlier this week on the program we told you about strict new abortion laws that have been passed in the state of Georgia. In neighbouring Alabama a debate in the state senate over creeping restrictions on abortion reached fever pitch. Alabama senators were to vote on a bill that would make it a felony for a doctor to perform or attempt to perform an abortion unless a woman's health was at serious risk. If guilty, a physician could face up to 99 years in prison. But before the amendment was approved, a motion was rushed through taking out provisions allowing for abortions if the pregnancies were the result of rape or incest. The rapid fire proceedings infuriated Senate Minority Leader Democrat Bobby Singleton -- and a shouting match ensued.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: There was no motion!

VOICE 2: There was a motion. He made a motion...

VOICE 1: He didn't even make a motion Mr. President. He did not a motion!

VOICE 2: He made a motion to table.

VOICE 1: There was no motion from the other side.

VOICE 2: He made a motion to table. Senator...

VOICE 1: Heck no! He did not make a motion!

VOICE 2: He made a motion to table.

VOICE 1: When was the motion made? No motion was made!

VOICE 2: Excuse me! Senator Chambliss you are recognized.

VOICE 1: I don't care what the chair is about -- he did not make a motion!

VOICE 3: In response to the number of abortions...

VOICE 1: No no no no!

VOICE 3: ...performed this year versus the rape and incest...

VOICE 1: He did not make a motion!

VOICE 4: Mr. President I have a point of order.

VOICE 2: All right state your point of order.

VOICE 4: Senator -- Figures. Thank you. Thank you Mr. President. My point of order is when Senator Singleton was here talking before he made it perfectly clear that everything we voted on he wanted a long roll call vote. And you know I know you all before this bill and I know this bill was going to pass. You are going to get your way. But at least treat us fairly and do it the right way. That's all that I ask, that's all that my Democratic colleagues ask, that's all that women in this state ask both Democratic and Republican women. So if there has been a motion made we would like to have a roll call vote on that motion.

VOICE 2: So Senator Chambliss -- I mean Senator Figures we're moving on. There was a motion made to table. It's not debatable. There was not three hands raised. And so we're moving on. Senator Chambliss thank you for...

VOICE 4: I'm very disappointed Mr. President.

JD: That was Alabama State Senator Vivian Figures -- a Democrat and one of four women serving in the Alabama legislature speaking to the state's lieutenant governor yesterday. A full vote on the new laws has been rescheduled for next week.

[Music]

Trappist beer battle

Guest: Jef Van den Steen

JD: For centuries, the monks of Rochefort Abbey in Belgium have been brewing a unique brown beer. And they don't just chuck in a bunch of hops and barley and see what happens. The recipe is precise. And it includes pure spring water from the local water table which they say is essential to the quality of their beer. Now a quarry business wants to drill in the area -- and the monks are not happy. Jeff Van den Steen is a Belgian brewer and the author of the book "Belgian Trappist and Abbey Beers." We reached him in the village of Erpe-Mere, Belgium.

CO: Jeff first of all what is so special about this beer from this monastery?

JEF VAN DEN STEEN: First of all, all Trappist beers in Belgium are special. But most special for the beers of Rochefort is that they only do dark brown beers. And that's a very old tradition. In the time when the country Belgium was a poor country, beer was part of the food and therefore the beers -- the popular beers -- in that time were beers with a lot of calories in it. So they still brew a dark rich calorie beer...

CO: It sounds delicious.

JEF VAN DEN STEEN: And that is one of the only beers of that type I guess in the world.

CO: And how important is the spring water to that beer?

JEF VAN DEN STEEN: The reason they are located the Abbey where it is nowadays is because of that well. The name of the valley La Tridaine and since 1230 until now the water in the Abbey all the water they need in the Abbey is coming from that spring. So for them that spring is a very important part of their history.

CO: So what would happen then if this -- and it seems like it's going to happen -- if this quarry is able to drill into that water -- to affect that water -- what effect would that have on the beer?

JEF VAN DEN STEEN: It's a difficult answer. First of all you have to know that with the technology of today you can imitate all types of water from the world. But when one day they should say we don't use the water of the well -- we use city water. And with that type of inverse osmosis we take all the minerals out of it. And we add the minerals in quantity. Do you think when the people will know that that the water will sell as itself today?

CO: But will it taste the same?

JEF VAN DEN STEEN: It would be 100 percent identical but it's not natural anymore. It's made by machinery. It's made by chemistry. It's not natural anymore. Everybody will know and I can assure you maybe the taste will be identically as now but it won't be the same anymore.

CO: But the mining company says they would drill into deeper aquifers and be able to give the the monks water -- very similar water -- but from a deeper place while their quarry tapped into the water they are using now. So if they're able to do that -- if they could give them still natural water from another aquifer, what difference would that make?

JEF VAN DEN STEEN: And do you think the water will be the same? When you go deeper you have another type of water. And the company Lhoist -- this is an international company -- they have quarries all over Europe. They can take the chunk they need from all the other quarries they have. It's a problem of money and they want to prove we are the boss here. And another problem is that the city of Rochefort -- it's a very small city, it is only 5500 people -- they become for free, water of the well. So it's not only for the monks, it's also for the city. For the monks, it's another question because the Abbey of Rochefort is a small Abbey. And they only brew 42,000 thousand hectolitres of beer. And that's not much. And knowing that the money they make is not only for them -- they only take enough money to live and all the money that is left they give it away every year for charity. You see it's a battle between capitalism and a normal way -- a human way -- of working and doing business. That's the real point.

CO: So it's a David and Goliath struggle. At the same time this company, Lhoist -- this very ,well, wealthiest families in Belgium behind it. And lots of money. But they say as well that they employ 150 people in their...

JEF VAN DEN STEEN: I know. I know. But they have -- I don't know how much quarries -- chalk quarry -- so for them it's not difficult to give those 150 people a job in one of their other plants. That's not difficult.

CO: You're saying that beer should take priority over chalk?

JEF VAN DEN STEEN: Not only the beer. The way of doing business -- the way of doing business is totally different. For Lhoist the only reason of doing business is money, money, money. And that's it. And for the monks it's partly also money because they need money to live but it's more than that. It's also charity. It's also a quality of life. Quality of the beer. It's a totally different way of doing business and that's the real battle.

CO: When we spoke with you last year it was when grocery stores in Belgium were trying to make a profit from Trappist beer. They were sneaking the beer into the stores to sell it which is against the rules for the monks...

JEF VAN DEN STEEN: Yeah. It was a problem of risks later.

CO: Does it seem to you sometimes as though that the Trappist monks trying to save their traditions, their way of life, the way they do things, is just getting harder and harder to achieve?

JEF VAN DEN STEEN: Yes it is harder and harder because the world and the way of doing business in this world is harder and harder. But I think they succeed. And I think that they are trying to tell the world that growing is not the only reason when you do business. By giving quality, you can still be important.

CO: Jef as always it's good to talk to you. Thank you.

JEF VAN DEN STEEN: Okay. Bye.

JD: Jef Van den Steen is a Belgian brewer. He spoke to us from his home in the village of Erpe-Mere, near Brussels. You can find more about the beer of Rochefort, Abbey on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

May 10, 2019 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This