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 2018

The AIH Transcript for June 12, 2018

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: Finding a sweet despot. After their summit, U.S. President Donald Trump says he has a very special bond with North Korea's Kim Jong-un. But the vagueness of their deal has some worried it's little more than a junk bond.

JD: Left out in the cold. In the winter of 2015, Grant Faulkner died trying to keep warm when his makeshift hut caught on fire. Now, an inquest into his death will examine how homeless people are treated in Toronto.

CO: Driven to subtraction. Our guest says that if Donald Trump follows through on his threats to Canada's car industry, he'll eliminate hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

JD: Mission anti-creep. More than 20,000 women take to the streets in Seoul, to tell South Korean men and law enforcement they are done with being recorded by hidden cameras.

CO: Significant udder. With her limpid eyes and hipster hairdo, it's hard to argue that Char is beautiful. But I'm still not sure her title is should be “Britain's Sexiest Cow”.

JD: And… dripping with water, and sarcasm. When a woman in the UK gets a letter asking her to stop hanging her laundry out to dry, her neighbours join a kind of boxer rebellion — and hang their own underwear out in support.

JD: “As It Happens”, the Tuesday edition. Radio that knows it's hard to organize a jest of drawers.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: North Korea “Deal”, homeless inquest, Devon clothesline

North Korea “Deal”

Guest: Sui Me Terry

JD: Less than a year ago, they were hurling insults, and the odd casual threat of nuclear annihilation. But this morning in Singapore, U.S President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un walked into a room and shook hands. They released a joint statement promising a major change in the relationship between the two countries. North Korea committed to, quote, "work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,". While Mr. Trump announced that he would suspend joint military exercises with South Korea. Sue Mi Terry is a former senior analyst on Korean issues at the CIA. She is now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. We reached her in New York.

CO: Ms. Terry, was this anything more than a good photo-op for North Korea and for Donald Trump?

SUE ME TERRY: Well, I think it was for more than photo op for Kim Jong-un. He got a lot of things that he wanted, which was to gain an international acceptance of North Korea as a nuclear weapons power, get prestige, respect, to appear as an equal to the United States. And he got all that. He was able to achieve a level of prestige and respect from the international community. What did he give? He gave nothing, except a statement that says he will work towards denuclearization of the Korean peninsula — that he's committed to working towards it. But a lot of perception right, a lot and for a lot of images, a lot of symbols. We saw a fox news headline says “North Korea Agrees to Complete Denuclearization After Summit.” That's the headline Mr. Trump would like to see in the United States. So did Mr. Trump get what he wants?

SMT: Well, what Mr. Trump got is a statement that North Korea has made before. North Korea said many times in the past that they would work towards a denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. But they have not said in this statement that they will unilaterally dismantle their nuclear weapons program, which is what we wanted to see. And they have not committed to that. Mr. Trump is going to spin it as some sort of success, but it's not successful. This was just a very aspirational, vague statement of principles.

CO: Even if it's just a reiteration, what does Mr. Kim mean when he says that we will work towards denuclearization? What does that mean in his mind?

SMT: I think what he means is that he's willing to continue this negotiation process. What he wants is for protracted negotiations.

CO: So again, it's aspirational. It's that we would like to have the conditions in which we could give up denuclearization, but we're not there yet?

SMT: Exactly. It was a very aspirational statement. Well, I have a lot of aspirations too. It doesn't mean I'm going to get there, you know? Make all my dreams come true. And even so we were able to have a stronger wording. We've got to get stronger wording out of North Korea in 2005 in other agreements. So this was really nothing of a gift. I was actually surprised that Kim Jong-un was so stingy. I thought he was you know if you wanted to sort of show that North Korea turning a new page, that he's a different leader than his father and grandfather, he could have given more than this.

CO: It was said later that he had agreed to destroy a major missile engine testing site. And that Mr. Trump presented that as another concession that was not written into the agreement. What does that mean?

SMT: So I think their goal truly is to have a lengthy negotiation process to drag this out and wait out this administration. So they do need to give something upfront. And even for the Iran deal, it took several years of really lengthy negotiations by Secretary Kerry. So this is what Secretary Pompeo has to look forward to: years of lengthy negotiations, because we are not even pushing North Korea that hard on the timeline.

CO: But isn't that something to work toward? I mean if that's what all this summit was able to do was to create the relationship between President Trump and Mr. Kim in order to lay the groundwork for Secretary of State Pompeo to continue even for years, wasn't that worth it then?

SMT: Yeah, it is a good thing in this regard. It's certainly better than where we were just several months ago — certainly better than November December of last year, when we were talking about preventive strike and a bloody nose option. It's certainly better than this. But if our goal truly is complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program, all I'm saying is that the statement does not get us near there. There’s not even a hint that we're going to get there.

CO: And do you think that's something that Mr. Kim wants? Even though we don't see it in this summit, that that's something that he actually would like to attain?

SMT: No, I don't think he wants complete, verifiable, irreversible, dismantlement of his nuclear program. What he wants is to have a negotiation process. What he wants is to have international acceptance of North Korea as a nuclear weapons state. He's willing to maybe give away some elements of North Korea's nuclear program. I think he's willing to do no more testing because he said they are done with their program. And then to see you know what they can get from the international community. But I don't believe that Kim Jong-un, as of today, is looking to really get rid of all of their nuclear program. And that's fine, as long as we have managed expectation. That we are managing North Korean crisis — that we're not going to absolutely solve it in the way that we keep saying that we are going to: complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement of their program.

CO: Does it disturb you at all that there was nothing said — or so little — said about Mr. Kim's record for his brutality, his human rights abuses, the things that he has done in North Korea. None of that seems to have been part of this discussion. Did you think it should have been?

SMT: Of course, I think it should have been. If we're looking to normalize relations with North Korea at one point, we must bring up human rights situation. I think yesterday was one year anniversary of the day that Otto Warmbier returned home in a comatose state. Japanese Prime Minister Abe met with President Trump multiple times to ask him to bring up the abduction issue. North Korea is a human rights violator — the worst kind in the world. United Nations Commission of Inquiry came out with 400-page report, and named Kim Jong-un by name, saying he's a man who commits crimes against humanity. Who runs gulags with 200,000 people in them. To not address this issue at all, I think it's absolutely wrong. And we need to address it.

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

SMT: Sure. Thank you.

CO: Bye bye.

SMT: Bye.

JD: Sue Mi Terry is the former director for Korea at the U.S. National Security Council. She is now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. We reached Ms. Terry in New York. We have more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Acoustic guitar]

Homeless inquest

Guest: Chris Faulkner

JD: His death was a poignant reminder of how brutal it can be to be homeless, in the dead of winter. Grant Faulkner was surviving in a shelter made out of scrap wood in Scarborough. And on a frigid night In January 2015, it went up in flames, and Mr. Faulkner was killed. He was 49 years old. An inquest into Mr. Faulkner’s death began this week. This is the first time in more than a decade that a homeless person's death in Toronto is being examined this closely. Chris Faulkner is Grant's brother. We reached Chris at a campsite just outside of Wawa, Ontario.

CO: Chris, how important is this inquest into your brother's death for you?

CHRIS FAULKNER: When Douglas Sinclair, the coroner, was talking to my brothers, looking for someone to talk, I mean just the fact that they're doing something like this you know it makes my brother’s passing in the way that a tragedy that how he passed feel like it's at least it's having some effect. And it's not just something that just happened, and then people just forget about it.

CO: And you testified via audio link from Sainte-Marie. What did you want to tell?

CF: The main thing that I wanted to get across is that my brother, Grant, was an ordinary guy like everyone else. He was a good guy, likeable; everyone liked him. Like everyone in life, we make different choices, and we make bad choices. But you know in general, when we're talking about the basic necessities of life, these kinds of things don't really matter and don't really affect it. Like my brother had an alcohol problem; he had it for a long time. But still, even with that difficulty, he was a good father with his kids, and he was a normal human being. Bad things happened to him at different times that caused him to end up where he was.

CO: How did that happen? How did he end up being homeless?

CF: The main kind of reasons it started is when he lost his job with A.G. Simpson…

CO: That was and auto parts manufacturer in Cambridge, Ontario, right?

CF: Yes, yes, that was the one. And then he went through a bad divorce; he wasn't able to see his kids. These types of things depressed him. And in something that I really regretted, and I don't know why, just when I was driving up the whole wait to come camping after I gave my testimony. I think it's more because I was so focused on the last year of my brother's life, I forgot what had happened immediately after he lost his job in Cambridge, and that was when he went and lived with my mother. And my mother was kind of supporting him at that time. When she passed away, then he kind of lost that support that was there. And then there wasn't support out there for him any other way.

CO: He ended up the night that he died, and it was it was a story that was very, very distressing in Toronto because it was a very cold night in January 2015; it was minus twelve. And he was in his shack; he in another homeless man had made a camp of plywood and wood pallets. And they had a fire in between to try to keep warm. What have you learned as to what happened in your brother's last moments and last hours?

CF: That's just the tragedy. He was he was off and on homeless at that time because he had a girlfriend which he lived with. And then they had an argument or whatever, and then he was out on the street. And one of his friends offered him that shelter to stay in. And then it just happened to be just the circumstances. And when he was sleeping in the shelter, there was a fire between the two. And I think just probably the wind was blowing the wrong way, and they both fell asleep, and his shelter caught on fire, and he was killed. He went to bed at 9 o’clock; the firemen I think were there around 10:30.

CO: You know I'm so sorry this happened to your brother. It’s just awful. In the course of the investigation, we've learned a lot about what your brother may have been going through, and just what homeless people at that time in Toronto. It was a particularly bad time, and people were running shelters that said homeless people would walk for hours to get something to eat at one of the places. This place where he was was sort of in the middle of nowhere in Scarborough.

CF: Yes. The ministers who were running these shelters and some of the concept they were taught was that how even difficult it was to get to the shelters. And most of the shelters were downtown Toronto. And if you lived somewhere else, it was almost impossible to get to one. There's so much tragedy with homelessness, and so many conditions. And one of the things that I said like there's so many people are homeless because of mental illness. They lose their employment, their work, or other life circumstances that just put them in those areas. And it's really no fault of their own. I mean it's just a circumstance. And the death like my brother’s the purpose of it is to make us as a society realize that we can't neglect these people. We can't ignore them. And it's a responsibility we have to make sure that people at least have the basic necessities for a safe environment to live in our communities.

CO: It sounds like from what people have said, he had a great family, didn't he? I mean there's a lot of you, and very loving. When someone like me like your brother falls through the cracks, what does that tell you about how vulnerable people are?

CF: I think that like in a sense we don't know what kind of circumstances can bring us to that point. I mean there are a lot of choices that people make in their life. You can look at those reasons that put people in that situation, but that's what we have to do as a society: make sure that those reasons don't become reasons for people to be on the street. That we address those kind of issues so that we're providing that basic necessity for people.

CO: How will you remember your brother?

CF: I always you know try to remember my brother like growing up in the good years of his life, and when he was a good father. And with everyone in your life, you try to forget the bad stuff and just remember the good. And it helps a lot for me to know that quite possibly the way that this tragedy of the way my brother passed away will not just have no fruit, but maybe it brings attention to this subject and helps hopefully.

CO: And I think you are right. I think that's the point of this is that they find out what happened to your brother. And I'm sorry again about your loss. But I appreciate that you’d talk to us about him.

CF: Thank you.

CO: All right. Take care.

CF: OK. Bye bye.

JD: Chris Faulkner is the brother of Grant Faulkner, a Toronto man who was homeless at the time of his death in January of 2015. An inquest in to Grant Faulkner's death is being held this week. We have more on the story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Devon clothesline

Guest: Anton Bolton

JD: We all know that airing our dirty laundry in public is a no-no. But what if our laundry is clean? One woman in the town of Colyton, Devonshire, in England, was doing just that: cleaning her clothes. And then, she hung her washed laundry to dry in front of her house. Apparently, however, someone found all those clean clothes to be a blight on the landscape — because that someone sent her a letter asking her not to do that. But apparently, other residents of Colyton don't share that opinion — because now, they're pointedly hanging their laundry out in solidarity. Anton Bolton is one of them. He's the town butcher. We reached him in Colyton.

CO: Anton, is it a good day for hanging the laundry outside?

ANTON BOLTON: It's a perfect day.

CO: Is there a lot of laundry out?

AB: Yeah, there's a fair bit out today. Yep.

CO: How much of that is a protest?

AB: 100 per cent of it, I should think.

CO: Can you just go back and tell us how this all began, about Claire Mountjoy, who was drawing her clothes in her yard. What was she driving? What was the issue there?

AB: Well, everything really. She obviously lives with her three growing sons. And she hasn’t got a backyard, so she has a clotheshorse and the line in the front of her house. And obviously dries all the laundry there.

CO: And what was on the line that was so bothersome to the writer of this letter — this complaint?

AB: Well, I don't think there was anything really to upset anybody. Obviously there was some smalls there, and a mixture of laundry. But I wouldn't say there was anything there to upset anybody.

CO: So there’s some underpants and some knickers out there, you think?

AB: That's right, yes, yeah, normal things.

CO: And what did you make of it when you heard that she had received a complaint that she was creating a problem in your town?

AB: Well, I thought it was an absolute load of rubbish. You know how small-minded can some people be, you know? It won't affect anything, you know? It sounds to me as if this person probably lives across the road and has to look at it, I think. That's what it sounds like.

CO: But the letter it says — Here's part of it — “Well we understand you have a small house with no outside room for your boys, would you please consider using a dryer, or hanging the washing indoors? This letter is not written with malice, but we ask you to please help us all keep Colyton a town we can all be proud of.

AB: Yeah, well we're all proud of it; it's a lovely place to be. There's plenty going on. Yeah, you can't say anything more than that, you know? It's a gem in the Devonshire countryside.

CO: The suggestion is that the business community wanted this laundry not to be outside, but you're the local butcher. So you're not part of it, I would presume?

AB: No, not at all. And I've spoken to several other business people in the town, and they just think it’s a load of nonsense. They’ve hung out washing as well. So you know that's rubbish — absolute rubbish.

CO: All right, so now what does the town look like when all the laundry is out? Because everyone's hanging their laundry out now, right?

AB: Well yeah, it's nice actually. The history society have done some heraldic banners outside most of the properties in the square; different families that lived here over the centuries. And I think you know the bit of washing here and there I think it's just you know people just doing their bit as well.

CO: So where are they hanging the laundry from?

AB: Well, there’s clotheshorses and lines outside the windows. There's some along fences. Out of upstairs bedrooms. There’s an old flagpole with things on.

CO: And how does Ms. Mountjoy feel about all this?

AB: Oh, she thinks it's brilliant. She was spoke to the other day. She said she’s you know overwhelmed that so many people have come out in support of her.

CO: I understand though that the story of your town is that it’s not unusual for Colyton to have this little bit of a dust up like this. You do have a history of being rebellious, is that right?

AB: Yeah, that's true. In 1685, The Duke of Monmouth — who was the eldest illegitimate son of King Charles the Second — decided that he wanted to get rid of his Uncle James, and take the throne. So he landed at Lyme Regis with a small army. And over a hundred men from Colyton march from Colyton to Lyme Regis in support of this. So we’re known as the most rebellious town in Devon because of that. It was ill-fated, he was obviously defeated at Sedgemoor, and that was the end of that. But yeah, that's what we're known as: The most rebellious town in Devon.

CO: So no one should be surprised to see your town decked out with pants, socks, pyjamas, and underwear?

AB: Not at all.

CO: Anyway, it's good to talk to you, Anton. And I hope for many, many more very good wash days for you.

AB: Thank you very much. Nice to talk to you.

CO: You too. Bye.

AB: Bye.

JD: Anton Bolton runs the Colyton Butcher shop. We reached him in Colyton, Devonshire.

[Music: Surf rock]

Louboutin win

JD: They say before you judge someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. But what if you're judging the shoes themselves? In this case, walking any distance in them is a problem: you buy Louboutins mostly because of their distinctive red sole, which is damaged by even the shortest stroll on the wrongest of surfaces. But the European Court of Justice wasn't judging their practicality. It was judging whether those red soles could be protected by trademark. As he tells it, Christian Louboutin just had a sudden inspiration one day in the early '90s. He was frustrated by a shoe prototype that he felt was dull, so he grabbed the nail polish out of an assistant's hand, and, quote, "[I] painted the sole, and it became this red sole, which became my trademark years after. Red means love, passion, blood." It also means "Louboutin". But a few years ago, a Dutch company started selling its own red-soled high heel. So Louboutin filed a lawsuit, claiming trademark infringement. As of February, it looked like the court would reject that claim: at the time, it said that the colour of Louboutin high heels was inseparable from their shape, and shapes were not protected under EU law. But today, vindication for the guy who hopefully reimbursed that assistant for using so much nail polish on a pair of stilettos. The Court of Justice ruled the colour was distinct from the shape, and that the Dutch company had infringed on the trademark red soles. Well, it seems like a sensible ruling on a wildly non-sensible shoe. But, of course, the case isn't over: now it goes back to a Dutch court, which means another long, exhausting period of sole-searching.

Part two: G7 trade latest, spy cam protest

G7 trade latest

Guest: Flavio Volpe

JD: In Singapore today, U.S. President Donald Trump wasn't just talking peace with a long-time enemy. He was also talking trade war with a long-time ally. Mr. Trump said that Canadians would pay a price for our prime minister's press conference at the G7 summit. And he says he's ordered his officials to see if that price can be extracted from the auto trade. The White House is investigating the possibility of imposing a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian-made cars, on national security grounds. That's the same reason they've given for raising the prices or imposing tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel. That move adds urgency to Flavio Volpe's meeting at the White House tomorrow. Mr. Volpe is the president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association of Canada. We reached him in Washington, D.C.

CO: Mr. Volpe, what would a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian-made cars what would that mean for your members and the people they employ?

FLAVIO VOLPE: It means that our customers in the United States, which is ostensibly the destination for about 75 per cent of those goods, will be forced to pay an extra seven or eight thousand dollars for those vehicles than they pay today. Means that sales will go down, demand will come down, production will come down. And if Canada retaliates, as we would expect them to do, the hurt would be felt equally on the other side of the border. We'd all be looking at material decreases in production and in employment.

CO: Initially though that the price when say seven or eight thousand dollars more per car, that's on the American side or our side?

FV: Would be on the American side. If they immediately put a 25 per cent tariff on cars going in there, you know the average price of a vehicle is somewhere between thirty and thirty two thousand dollars. And so throw 25 per cent more onto that. The American side will have to figure out who pays the cost. And ostensibly, it would end up on the end consumer.

CO: The industry — auto manufacturing in Canada and the United States — is so interconnected, isn't it? I mean and so how many times we’re been talking about a tariff being applied, given that parts go back and forth, and get added on to other bigger parts, and then finally become part of a car. How many times might a tariff be added to a car part?

FV: Well, the Center for Automotive Research in Michigan says that a part could travel up to eight times across the border before it ends up on the final car. So you see multiples on either side of three or four times hitting a tariff action. Whether it's an American tariff, or what we would expect to be a retaliatory Canadian tariff. You know the two countries we've been making cars together since 1904. It is such an interconnected, interwoven history. It's sheer madness that we're speaking about this.

CO: But you're meeting with President Trump’s economic team tomorrow. What are you going to say to them?

FV: I think what we're going to do is take the time to explain that interconnectedness. Bring it down to the details of you know there are American carmakers in Canada that get engines and transmissions from the American side, from parts made on the Canadian side, from resins sourced in the U.S. And try to make them understand that regardless of what action you might take on Canada, it's going to be immediately felt by American employers and employees. Certainly, there's got to be a different way of achieving the means of whatever it is that we're targeting. I thought we were trying to get to a NAFTA 2.0. Perhaps we can help them refocus on the real benefits of the free trade relationship.

CO: How many jobs are you looking at? How many possible job losses are we looking at?

FV: Well, I’d hate the thumbnail what the loss would be. But I'll tell you that about 500,000 jobs directly and indirectly in Ontario are reliant on the automotive sector — the single biggest employer, the single biggest contributor to the provincial GDP, and amongst the biggest single contributors to the Canadian GDP with the resource sector and the food industry. It is not inconsequential at all nationally. But it is very acute in car towns like Windsor, and Woodstock, and Ingersoll, and Oshawa, and Toronto.

CO: It seems to me just on the face of it this is something that Mr. Trump was responding to. He didn't like what Mr. Trudeau was saying in the press conference. And then he said I'm going to punish them. Or is it something larger? I mean is there an objective to this that you've heard of that Mr. Trump actually thinks that this would be beneficial to the United States?

FV: No, I think it probably is the former and not the latter. The president is also capable of incredible U-turns. You know not too long ago, he was threatening the North Koreans with fire and fury like the world has never seen before. And yesterday, we saw them exchanging peace gestures. So I think perhaps you know a little bit of a cool down period and some good, old-fashioned statecraft and diplomacy might see us back at the table.

CO: But it might actually be something that Mr. Trump wants to achieve. I mean Doug Porter, chief economist at the Bank of Montreal, was saying that even just the threat of tariffs creates enough uncertainty that producers may decide that well, you know we need to invest more in the United States. And so they might actually be able to achieve what the administration is aiming for: these threats of tariffs, even if they never even apply them. Isn't that exactly what Mr. Trump is trying to do?

FV: There is a school of thought that says he believes that the uncertainty is good for the investment prospects in the U.S. And certainly we've seen major automotive decisions like Toyota and Mazda in Alabama, and FCA moving truck production back to Michigan. It's not sustainable in the long term even for the American economy. But if that’s his objective, and I think that might be a bit of a stretch, but if it is, then it's working for him. But putting a tariff as high as 25 per cent on vehicles that cross the border of the north into the South would undo all of that.

CO: The White House has launched an investigation into the possibility of using national security grounds to impose sanctions on Canadian cars. How do you think Canadian government should respond?

FV: Well, I think the Canadian government's response when the White House used that for steel and aluminum is appropriate. I think it's incumbent on industry to respond properly. You know the Trade Expansion Act was never intended to be used in the way the president is using it. If it gets used against the auto sector with tariffs on finished vehicles, companies that make those cars should take a look at injunctive relief and go make a petition in federal court in the U.S. and say this isn't a legal action by the federal government that hurts our investment prospects capriciously. I expect to see that.

CO: We will be watching what happens tomorrow with you meeting, Mr. Volpe. Thank you.

FV: Thank you.

JD: Flavio Volpe is the President of the Automotive Parts Manufacturer's Association of Canada. We reached him in Washington, D.C. Well, I’ll tell ya, in the United States, there are people who think that Mr. Trump's defiance is long-overdue. Check out this headline in the Washington Post: "Finally, a president with the guts to stand up to Canada." In the column under that headline, Dana Milbank throws a wicked hip check on Canada in the wake of new U.S. sanctions and a testy G7 meeting. Mr. Milbank writes, "O Canada: You had it coming, eh. "They inflicted Nickelback on us. We did nothing. They sent us Justin Bieber. We turned the other cheek. They were responsible for one abomination after the other: Poutine. Diphthong vowels. Hawaiian pizza. Instant mashed potatoes. Ted Cruz. "Still, we did not retaliate — until now. "Finally, the United States has a president with the brains and the guts to stand up to the menace of the north. This weekend President Trump called Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau "meek", [and] "very dishonest & weak" for protesting U.S. tariffs. Trump's trade adviser said 'there's a special place in hell' for Trudeau, and Trump's economic adviser said Trudeau 'stabbed us in the back' and is guilty of 'betrayal' and 'double-crossing'. "How do you feel now, Canada? Or, to put it in a language you understand: How's she bootin'er?" That was part of Dana Milbank's anti-Canada column in the Washington Post today. It's okay if you're weeping in your poutine. That kind of attack, like President Trump's, is unfamiliar. But today, one of Mr. Trump's aides spoke to Canadians in a language we're more familiar with: the language of an apology. On Sunday, Peter Navarro said in an interview that there was a, quote, "special place in hell" for Justin Trudeau, after what he viewed as our prime minister's insulting behaviour toward the U.S. president. Well, today, at the Wall Street Journal's annual CFO Network conference, he seemed contrite for giving Mr. Trudeau hell, or part of it.

SOUNDCLIP

PETER NAVARRO: So let me correct the mistake I made last Sunday. The day before, on Saturday, at the end of what was a very successful and friendly G7 summit, shortly after Air Force One and the president left Canadian airspace, the prime minister of Canada held a press conference that this administration viewed as a breach of protocol an inappropriate. Next morning on Fox News, my job — my mission — was to send a very strong signal of strength. And this was particularly important on the eve of an even more a far more important summit in Korea. And the problem is that in conveying that message, I used language that was inappropriate.

HOST: Special place hell for the prime minister.

PN: Basically lost the power of that message. I own that. That was my mistake. Those were my words. And if I may quote the words of the great Bear Bryant, “When you make a mistake, you should admit it. Learn from it. Don't repeat it.”

HOST: Are you apologizing?

PN: Yeah, what I've learned from this is simply that, particularly in my role as a presidential adviser, that that what we need to do and I need to do is simply focus on these serious policy differences and issues.

JD: That was Donald Trump aide Peter Navarro, explaining that it was a mistake to say there was a, quote, “special place in hell” for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after the G7 meeting.

[Music: World music]

Spy cam protest

Guest: Haeryun Kang

JD: This weekend, an estimated 22,000 women took to the streets of South Korea — in a very public bid to keep their privacy.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: A call-and-response protest shouted in Korean]

JD: Specifically, they were protesting against a phenomenon known as "molka" — the alarmingly common practice of filming and photographing women, often naked, or in public washrooms, without their knowledge or consent. This hidden camera footage is then uploaded to websites, and is disseminated as pornography, which is illegal in South Korea. Haeryun Kang is the CEO and Managing Editor at Korea Expose. She covered this weekend's protests. We reached her in Seoul.

CO: Ms. Kung, just how unusual was it to have this kind of a protest this weekend?

HAERYUN KANG: It was the largest recorded woman's rally in South Korean history. So it was incredibly moving to see a protest of that size I guess in any context. And I looked at the rally, and I thought you know the anger took a long time in coming because this problem has been around for a long time.

CO: Let's talk about this problem because what they're describing this is illegal to spy on women, to record them naked, is it not?

HK: Yes, it is. But South Korea is also one of the most well-connected societies in the world, with one of the world's fastest internet speeds. And it's actually really easy for anyone to buy a spy camera online. So you can get lighters, or USBs, or pencils with tech cameras on the tip. And it's just a really easy environment to take these footages, upload them, and distribute them without the woman's consent.

CO: Just describe how it works? How are these spy cams used by people who are trying to film women in places where they are naked?

HK: So the misconception with spy camera pornography is that the context is usually sexual. And the thing is it's not. A lot of the footages are not necessarily sexual in nature. It can be just women wearing a bikini, or walking on the street, and those body shots are repurposed to be consumed as porn. It's really easy to crop something out and highlight a particular body part.

CO: And who's doing this? Who's turning the images of South Korean women into porn?

HK: A lot of people. I mean I think the biggest problem is that spy cam pornography is consumed uncritically in so many contexts. For men — especially young men in their teens and early 20s — it's just often a matter taste. Perpetrators can be anyone from I mean you know if you just think of this as a game, then you can take shots of woman when they're not looking, you can upload them. A lot of times people in relationships, you know a husband or boyfriends would even take and upload them, and upload them to websites. And ask other users to rate their girlfriend’s genitalia.

CO: Good heavens! So these are people who actually know the women. Women know the people who are victimizing them in this way?

HK: Yeah, the Korean Women Lawyers’ Association they did an extensive study on how widespread this was. And about 90 per cent of the cases were strangers, but 10 per cent were you know acquaintances — people in relationships.

CO: And now what has the police done about it? I mean how often do the women complain? Do they take these cases when they find out that this has happened to them, do they take them to the police?

HK: Yes, if they find out. The scary thing is you don't even know that people have been taking pictures because the point of it is to secretly film you. And a lot of the times that when women go to the police, their cases get rejected. And the problem is because of the way the police define what’s illegal spy cam content. So first, they have to be able to identify the victims, which often is hard to do, especially in toilet spy cameras because all you see are like kind of legs or genitalia. And you can't identify a specific victim. And secondly, the footages in question have to specifically kind of cause humiliation or sexual humiliation. So it has to be some explicitly sexual, which rules out a lot of the spy cam content.

CO: I understand the protests that we saw this weekend, which were unprecedented, came about in part because a woman was actually arrested and charged. Can you tell us about that?

HK: Yes. So we don't know her full name, but she secretly filmed a nude male model at a university in Seoul, and distributed the footages online without his consent. And the police arrested her, and put her in front of the media so that the media was able to take pictures of her getting arrested. So I think what the protesters were really ticked off by was not that she didn't do anything wrong, but the visibility of her case compared to the thousands of other cases where the women are victims.

CO: Is there a sense that these protests are going to do any good? Are going to change anything?

HK: I am on the more optimistic side. I think this protest will give a lot of visibility to the issue. There's a lot of anger from these women. And it's definitely been raising more questions in the public, and especially among government institutions about what needs to be done. I think the women's anger is really kind of waking people up to how severe this question is — and how daily this threat has been in a lot of women's lives.

CO: How often, how many times a day do women say this happens to them?

HK: It's really not easy to quantify this. So you know there's the official police statistics of the number of cases they handle every year, and that's on average over 6,000 cases in the past few years annually. But the numbers are probably much higher than that because of the number of cases they reject. And also, it's really kind of hard to regulate all the thousands of posts that go up on all these different websites that form, and disappear, and form again, and so forth. But it's been in the news actually for long enough. And there's been enough victims who suffered because of this that women in their daily lives feel threatened by this issue.

CO: Well obviously, enough for 22,000 women to turn out in the streets of Seoul in protest.

HK: Right.

CO: Ms. Kang, thank you for telling us this story.

HK: No problem at all.

JD: Haeryun Kang is the CEO and Managing Editor at Korea exposé. We reached her in Seoul.

[Music: Horns]

Sexiest cow

JD: She's a steward of the environment, an artisanal beverage maker who runs a grass-roots operation. But what is she being celebrated for? Her looks. I'm not saying Char is not gorgeous. She is. Her auburn up-do, her dark eyes, her black-on-white snout are, objectively, quite breathtaking. But I can't be the only one who's uncomfortable with her new title: "Britain's Sexiest Cow". It's a plus that the competition was open to cattle of all genders and types. One of the runners-up, "Tetford Twinkle", is a bull with beautifully curved horns, and the defiant expression of Marky Mark in those old Calvin Klein underwear ads. The other, "Bonnie", sports a wild full-body shag, and — in a bold departure from the clichés of fashion photography — a good-sized tuft of hay dangling from her mouth. So you couldn't say the competition wasn't inclusive. And it's hard to argue that Char, a Jersey from Devon, isn't exquisite. Jerseys are known for their pleasant demeanours. They also convert grass to milk so efficiently that some have suggested their carbon footprint is 20% smaller than that of other dairy breeds. And the colouring around her eyes — a sweep of white with a curve of black above. It is… it’s delightful. It's the "sexiest" thing though that really sours my cream. And to top it off, guess who benefits from Char's beauty? Her humans — they get a spa trip; she gets nothing. It's enough to turn your stomach, or all four compartments of hers. As if they weren't already milking her for all she was worth.

Part three: Yemen Red Cross, SCOTUS salmon ruling, baobab trees

Paul Dewar cancer

JD: They thought it was a problem with his arm. But the MRI detected a tumour in his brain. Former NDP Member of Parliament Paul Dewar first noticed something was off while he was skating on the Rideau Canal. Things progressed quickly after that. And just days after his cancer was detected, Mr. Dewar had surgery. But when the tumour was sent for analysis it revealed Stage Four glioblastoma. That is the same type of cancer that killed Gord Downie last year. It's terminal, and there's no cure. This morning, Mr. Dewar spoke with CBC Ottawa's Robin Bresnahan about the diagnosis — beginning with how he and his wife Julie chose to share the news with their kids.

SOUNDCLIP

PAUL DEWAR: Dr. Drake, who’s a fantastic surgeon here, as are all the people we've dealt with here in the health care community, said do you want to just have you know Julie here? Or do you want the kids? And we said no, we want the kids. We've done that from day one. I joke with my kids about you know you can brag that your dad was operated on by Drake. And you know they're your kids, you love them, they're obviously the best kids in the world because they’re your kids. But they've been just amazing. And we've been open with them. And it's been tough, but you know we've been transparent about everything. And they heard the news, they took it in, and they've been dealing with it with their friends and with us ever since. And I love them to death. And they've been a great support.

ROBIN BRESNAHAN: How does a diagnosis like this change those interactions with the people who you love most?

PD They’re more profound, obviously. They’re incredibly genuine, and obviously emotional. But there are so damn real. It's a gift. And you know it's a gift that is obviously one you don't plan for. But it's a gift because you know that those are things that we sometimes take for granted. So yeah.

RB: And you hear that so often from people who are left behind.

PD: Yeah.

RB: That you have to cherish that time you have. And yet, how many of us actually take that advice, right?

PD: Yeah, it’s so true. You know I'm not the first one to go through this journey, and I won't be the last. But I can say to you that it is that incredible paradox dichotomy of having been given this time, and being given you know all the people around you that love you. And exceptional people that you encounter. And so yeah, it's been a real gift. And my life has been a gift. And it was really overwhelming the love and support. It really affirms that you know all the stuff and nonsense we hear sometimes in politics, there's good people everywhere, and they're all trying to make a difference. Do the best they can. And I certainly felt that.

RB: So many of our listeners have emailed us, saying do you know how Paul Dewar is doing? Is there an update? Is there anything that you want to say to the people who are listening right now?

PD: Oh, thank you is what I want to say to everyone. Because it's been really amazing how my neighbours... we had people delivering food to us; we had a food train it was called. And people who knew us just bringing food to us at the time I was going through treatment. But just everywhere in this city where people who were reaching out to online and sending us love and support. So I just want to say thank you. And particularly to the staff. There's lots happening, and I'm just so,.so grateful for the love and support of everyone in this city. We have a fantastic city.

JD: That was Former NDP Member of Parliament Paul Dewar, speaking with CBC Ottawa's Robyn Bresnahan, about his terminal brain cancer diagnosis. Mr. Dewar's diagnosis has prompted him to launch a new initiative. It’s called Youth Action Now. It supports grassroots organizing by young people. He was inspired, he says, by his relationship with his own two sons.

[Music: Somber]

Yemen Red Cross

Guest: Mirella Hodeib

JD: After more than three years of war, disease, and famine, the people of Yemen are in desperate need of humanitarian assistance. But last week, the International Committee of the Red Cross announced that the country is just simply too unsafe for it to continue its full operations. It's pulled more than 70 members of its international staff out of the country. Yesterday, the United Nations followed suit — evacuating its staff from the city of Al Hudaydah. Mirella Hodeib is a humanitarian worker for the Red Cross. She was working in Sana'a, the capital of Yemen, until last week. We reached Ms. Hodeib in Beirut.

CO: Ms. Hodeib, why did the Red Cross decide it wasn't safe for its staff to be in Yemen?

MIRELLA HODEIB: We had numerous threats in the past. They were often unsubstantiated. But regardless now of how small a threat is seen to be, at this stage, we do not have the luxury of taking any additional risk — especially after the shooting and killing of our colleague on April 21^st.

CO: And that was just an awful thing. He was in a car, unarmed, doing his work, and shot dead in Yemen. What effect did that have all of you who were working there?

MH: It was devastating because the Red Cross is known to be very close to the communities we work with. So the fact that a colleague of ours, who was just carrying out their normal work, is shot and killed. It's shocking, and it's had a ripple effect over the team in Yemen because what he was trying to do was help, and his life ended. So this was shocking to everyone.

CO: At the same time, you and others have just been putting up with such extreme difficulty trying to help people in Yemen. You're dealing with a war that no one seems to be willing to end. You're dealing with the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world right now. You have problems with cholera, disease, famine, everything. How difficult is it for you and your colleagues to be leaving?

MH: It is very difficult. And we know that that needs are massive in Yemen. More than 80 per cent of the population are in need of some kind of aid. And it’s a bit ironic because instead of focusing our efforts to respond to the huge and growing humanitarian needs, we are focused on ensuring the safety of our own staff. So I mean this, of course, reflects on the quality and size of our response in Yemen.

CO: We should point out this is a humanitarian crisis completely manmade, isn't it? This is not a natural disaster. This is a country — that can feed itself that can care for itself — being destroyed by war.

MH: yes, since 2015, so many aspects of daily life and infrastructure in Yemen have been affected as a result of the war. It's true that humanitarian organizations can only help within a fraction, but not be able to cover all the needs because the needs are immense. So the Res Cross but also other organizations are doing part of the work, but the rest of the work needs to be done by the Yemenis themselves.

CO: What we're seeing right now is the United Nations is saying that it was going to pull its staff out, and from the port of Al Hudaydah, which is a crucial place, isn't it, for getting supplies, for relief, aid, and everything for this catastrophe for Yemen. And that they're saying that they're anticipating they've been told to expect a major attack on that port. What will happen to that actually comes to pass? If there is a military operation in Hudaydah?

MH: So I mean whenever fighting nears an urban centre, we can expect that the repercussions on civilians and civilian infrastructure would be very bad. And as you just mentioned, carol, Hudaydah is where most of the imports into Yemen come in. So that would also have an effect on the humanitarian aid, the food, the fuel, and other that come into Yemen — especially to the north. So there are a lot of signs that make us worry. The International Committee of the Red Cross has actually urged all parties to the conflict to spare civilians, to spare civilian infrastructure, and to abide by international humanitarian law. So we see that there would be dire consequences to any fighting meaning the city that is densely populated.

CO: Do you have any idea who is making the threats on the International Committee of the Red Cross? The reason you're leaving is because of these threats. Where is that coming from?

MH: Well, since 2014, we have lost colleagues across Yemen. And you know that Yemen is a divided country that each is ruled by a different faction or party to the conflict. So the threats are also that we are really lacking the security guarantees that are solid, and credible, and durable for us to be able to carry on with our work in Yemen. And, unfortunately, the ICRC has made the decision to relocate its staff members because a security incident at this stage yet another one would be detrimental to our ability to pursue our response in Yemen on the long run.

CO: You're describing a situation where it was already so difficult for the humanitarian aid to help Yemen dealing with a massive crisis, a war that doesn't have an end, and now so many of you are leaving. What's going to happen in the days and weeks to come in Yemen, as so many aid workers pull out?

MH: It is going to be even more catastrophic and tragic. It's a protracted conflict. It has drained the Yemenis and the Yemen infrastructure. Humanitarian workers and humanitarian organizations could only respond to one portion of the needs. And it will have a very negative impact on the humanitarian situation there.

CO: Well, I hope they’re listening to you, Ms. Hodeib. But thank you for speaking with us. And I'm so sorry this is going on for Yemen.

MH: Thank you, Carol. Thank you.

CO: Goodnight.

MH: Goodnight.

JD: Mirella Hodeib is a humanitarian worker for the Red Cross. We reached her in Beirut. We have more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Somber]

Saskatoon police dog

JD: Police have called it a "terrible accident". Over the weekend, officers were out tracking break-and-enter suspects in Saskatoon with a police dog. The dog had a harness on, was on a leash. Somehow, though, police say, the dog managed to go around a corner — and bite a young girl. The child had wounds on her stomach, and needed stiches. Amanda Pritchard saw it. Her daughter, and other kids, were with the girl when it happened. Here's what Ms. Pritchard told the CBC in Saskatoon. And a warning, some of you may find the details disturbing.

SOUNDCLIP

AMANDA PRITCHARD: Next thing I heard a growl. I looked, and I saw the dog take her from the door step, like grabbed her, put her on the ground and shook a little bit. Then next thing I saw two cops, one cop went over the dog, and repeatedly said to the dog let go, let go, let go. The dog growled at the cop. Yes, I heard that. And it was like a really vicious growl. Like when you would steal a dog's food from his plate as he's eating, that's how it was. Like that kind of growl. And the dog just once again did a little shake again. I heard the little girl say “ow” numerous times. I look back because I was going berserk. I was grabbing my hairs, screaming, along with the little girls. Not realizing like the girls shouldn't be seeing this. So I pushed them away. As I looked away, I told the girls go to the next room. As they went to the next room, I looked. The dog was already off. The one cop that was standing on this side grabbed the little girl, and asked her if she's OK? If he could check out her wound? I saw him lift it, but I looked away. I heard the little girl crying. She must have been in pain because the piercings.

JD: That was Amanda Pritchard speaking to the CBC in Saskatoon about a police dog that bit a young girl. Contrary to Ms. Pritchard's description, Saskatoon police said that the dog immediately released the girl when its handler ordered it to. They are investigating the incident, and the dog is off duty.

[Jazz]

SCOTUS salmon ruling

Guest: Jay Julius

JD: Once, salmon were bountiful in Washington State waters . But over the last thirty years, populations have dwindled. Native American tribes who signed treaties based on a right to fish have watched stocks shrink by as much as seventy-five per cent. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with those tribes. They've upheld a lower court's ruling that Washington State must fix road culverts that have been blocking salmon migration. Jay Julius is the Chairman of Lummi Nation, one of the tribes that has fought this case for nearly twenty years. We reached Mr. Julius in Lummi, Washington.

CO: Mr. Julius, what does this Supreme Court decision mean for you?

JAY JULIUS: Well, it means a lot to us because Salmon is who we are. It's our culture. And to us, culture is fish. So this was an important victory. Had it gone the other direction, it would have been devastating to our people.

CO: What does this salmon mean? When you say that is part of you, it is you, your identity is through this fish, what do you mean by that?

JJ: We're rich with culture. We're rich with history in the past. And we still live that way. We bring our children up that way. The beginning of teaching, and development, and education starts on the water. And it always has since time immemorial. So when we say to us, fish is culture, and culture is fish. Salmon historically has always been an important part of who we are. An important resource for our people, for our waters, for everything.

CO: How has it changed though? You say this is so much part of your life. Since you were a kid, how much has that salmon population changed?

JJ: Well, I was born in 1975, and my father was a fisherman, his father was a fisherman, and his great grandfather was a signatory of the treaty you know around contact 1855. So you know I used to see salmon plentiful early times in the summer, even deep into winter, fall. We had numerous fisheries. And so what I've witnessed in my 42 years here is those runs no longer here. And when they do show up, it's in such small numbers that they can't be harvested. You got to let them return, and let them continue to try to make their comeback. So we've just witnessed the runs shrink in my time. And now we experience fish disasters, declarations of disasters where we don't even go fishing any longer. And for us, you know that's a really bad thing because we secured and reserve the right to fish in our treaty.

CO: And this decision — this Supreme Court decision — is placing at least some — if not much of the blame — for what's happened to salmon stocks at the feet of the state of Washington State because of how it has constructed its roads and culverts. Can you tell us what has affected these spawning grounds that you're describing of the salmon?

JJ: Well, I think a lot of blame could be pointed in many different directions. This is one of many past policymakers within Washington State who have created many bad policies that have led to the current condition of the salmon. But without a doubt culverts have blocked the passage of salmon's ability to pass and go spawn. And then once they spawn, go to the ocean, and then make their run, and then come back. You know I wouldn't put 100 per cent blame on the culverts, but it can take a lot of responsibility, as well as the policy makers who allow things like this to take place.

CO: The state — Washington State — is saying that it will cost them billions of dollars to replace the culverts, and to do what the courts have said they should do. Do you think they will comply? Do you think that they're going to continue to fight this reparation?

JJ: Well, I hope there's a shift. I hope there's a shift in behaviour, and a recognition that this needs to take place. They say they need to fix them. They're saying the time frame is too short. But as our attorney who represented us in the Supreme Court stated to the justices, yes, it sounds like a lot of money, but when you put it into perspective, it's one-half-of-one-percent of the state's transportation budget. So it's a must they repair and fix these culverts to allow the passage of salmon. And allow them to go back and spawn, and allow them to exercise their right to survive and be here. They were here long before us.

CO: We have seen the degradation of fish stocks all over the place. And a lot of it's because of how the roads are constructed, there's climate change, there’s factors that scientists can't even figure out some of the reasons why. Do you think that it's possible to bring the salmon back?

JJ: Absolutely. I'm an optimistic individual. Again, the behaviour of the past has to change. And policy makers today and in the future have to recognize the wrongs that have been done, the mistakes that have been made. And not to point the finger or blame, but we learn the most from mistakes we make. And the state needs to realize and recognize that. And create policy around looking after these resources.

CO: And do you think that your kids, your grandkids, your great grandkids will see fish as you saw when you were a boy?

JJ: I'm very optimistic, yes. And it's going to take a lot of continued work. It's going to take a lot of continued historic days like yesterday. And the up-and-coming generations, who are environmentally concerned, and not necessarily driven by money. I am hopeful, and I am optimistic. Our children are the leaders of tomorrow. And the work that Lummi Nation and tribal leaders are doing, we're just following in the footsteps of our forefathers, our grandparents, our parents. And this great leadership will continue for all.

CO: Mr. Julius, I thank you for your optimism. And I thank you for speaking with us.

JJ: My pleasure. Thank you.

JD: Jay Julius is Chairman of Lummi Nation. We reached him in Lummi, Washington.

[Music: Ambient]

Baobab tree

Guest: Roxana Patrut

JD: Baobab trees are huge, and they can live for thousands of years. But according to new research, in parts of southern Africa some of those giant and ancient trees are dying. The news was published this week in the journal Nature Plants. In the paper, the researchers call it, quote, "an event of an unprecedented magnitude." Roxana Patrut is one of the authors of the study. We reached her in Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

CO: Ms. Patrut, for those who have never seen one of these trees, I mean are really extraordinary to look at. And can you describe what they look like, and what it's like to be in their presence?

ROXANA PATRUT: They're definitely awe-inspiring trees. Personally, after having been used to European trees, seeing a baobab first time was a truly amazing experience. They're like a building. The first baobab I have seen also had false cavity inside in which a bar was established. So I went in, and it was just unbelievable.

CO: And they are really very important. They're landmarks throughout Africa. They are also supply of food, and all kinds of things that come from these trees. And they've also been used for shelter, is that right?

RP: Yes, the cavities are fairly large. So they've been used as post offices, prisons, schools, churches, shelters for people, or during times of war. Even, for example, in Tanzania, there are some baobab trees which have been used by poachers. They have wide application ranging from food source to medicine. And even the leaves are edible.

CO: How old were the trees that you were studying?

RP: They were millennial trees. But the oldest one was located in Zimbabwe. We have dated this baobab at an age of 2,450 years. And that is the upper limit for baobabs.

CO: Now, you were researching something else when you made this discovery. What were you trying to find out about baobab trees?

RB: We were trying to age them accurately because other researchers claim that it's impossible to date a baobab because of the large hollow parts in their trunks, which we identified as false cavities later. Also, baobabs have faint growth rings, so traditional dating methods were unplayable and in the case of baobabs.

CO: And what did you discover. In the course of doing this research, what did you learn about the perils these trees are facing right now?

RB: We suspect that climate change is the main culprit in the demises recorded all over South Africa over the past 12 years. Eight of the 13 oldest, and five of the six largest baobabs, have died, or at least their oldest parts or Steams have died.

CO: And it's not just a natural life cycle?

RB: It is quite improbable for so many trees, which are sometimes isolated, to collapse over such a short time span, and such a wide area.

CO: What do you mean? Tell us a bit more what you're talking about?

RB: What I'm saying is that we're talking about southern Africa, which includes a lot of countries, and the trees were quite far from one another. So it's not an epidemic. And we know now that the upper age limit of baobab is well over 2,000 years. There were no signs of disease. And also, South Africa is known as one of the fastest warming areas of our planet due to climate change.

CO: Some people are saying that your research can't make such a conclusion about climate change because it's such a small sample of the trees. What do you say to them?

RB: That we are going to continue researching it until we can prove that our suspicions are valid.

CO: How will you do that?

RB: We are going try and do past climate reconstruction in the areas where the trees collapsed.

CO: When you say collapsed, like how do they die these trees?

RB: It depends. Each tree dies in his own particular way, according to its architecture. For example, in the case of the oldest, all of its steams collapsed in a matter of seconds. Well, in the case of other trees, it takes years for all the parts to topple and die.

CO: And that's what they do? They just sort of collapse on themselves? They just hollow out?

RB: Exactly, that is what is happening. So it's quite dramatic to see a tree that was once whole suddenly in pieces.

CO: You worked with your dad on the study. How important are these trees to your family?

RB: I think they're one of the most important icons… symbols of our family. People know us now all around the world because of Baobabs. I have had a huge opportunity to meet great people and see wonderful places thanks to our research project on baobabs.

CO: Ms. Patrut, thank you for telling us the story.

RB: Thank you so much.

JD: Roxana Patrut is a PhD student in the faculty of biology and geology at Babes-Bolyai University. We reached her in Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

June 12, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode