The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - If Sweden Is Smoke-Free, What's Canada?

Episode Date: June 3, 2026

It's an End Bits Wednesday, and leading the program today is a follow-up to the story about Sweden declaring itself smoke-free. If that's the case, what's Canada? And which country in the world is far from smoke-free? That and more!   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of the bridge. It's Wednesday. It's an end bit special. We got lots of stuff for you today. That's coming right up. Well, here we are halfway through the week. It's Wednesday.

You're listening to the Bridge. Wednesdays are either encore days or end bits days. And so far we haven't had an encore this year. We're almost at the summer break. and we have some interesting stuff on our in-bit special. In-bits, of course, are those kind of like interesting little tidbits of news that didn't quite make it on to programs, or at least the programs I listened to.

And therefore, we save them up for Wednesdays and slipped them into the program. Now, if you read The Buzz, my weekly newsletter comes out Saturday mornings, It's got a good readership You know More than 20,000 People subscribe to the bus

There's no cost You just Sign up at national newswatch Dot com Slash newsletter Just have to give your email That's it That's it

Nothing else And you'll get it Every Saturday morning at 7 a.m. What is it? My newsletter is It's simply The stories that I watched during the week that I found interesting.

They could be headline stories or they could be just sort of interesting tidbits. News you can use stuff. So that's what's in the buzz and, you know, a few of my comments about various things. So it's an easy read. Comes out 7 a.m. Eastern Time Saturday mornings in your inbox. So it gives you something to read on Saturday. is if you're so inclined to kind of sit back, relax, and read some interesting material,

stuff that will go beyond the headlines. Okay, what are we got for, well, first of all, I should remind you tomorrow is your turn. The question of the week, and you've only got a next couple of hours until 3 p.m. Eastern time today to get your answers in. the question of the week is, how do you describe your identity?

Are you, say, Canadian? Or are you a hyphenated Canadian? Or do you distinguish yourself by the province you live in? You know, I'm a Manitoban or the city. I'm a, you know, Haligonian. What might it be? So you come up with the answer to that question and why you have that answer.

You send it to the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. You keep it under 75 words. You include your name and the location you're writing from. And you have it in once again by 3 p.m. Eastern time today. So that doesn't leave you much time. We have lots of answers already and we appreciate that. Okay. If you read the buzz, as I was trying to get to,

and if you listen to this program, then you probably heard me say in the last couple of weeks that there is a country in the world that is now declared itself smoke-free. What does smoke-free mean? Does it mean absolutely no one in that country smokes? No, that it means that less than 5% of people smoke. And so the story, as we've reported it,

is that Sweden has declared to sell smoke-free, so it's less than 5%. So we talked about that, and it's raised two questions. Okay, so what's Canada's number? And of all countries in the world, which country is likely to be the heaviest smoker? You probably have answers to that last one. But in terms of the Canadian number, what's Canada's number? Well, it's not 5%.

It's not 10%. But it's close. It's between, we're told, between 11 and 13% of Canadians are smokers. Between 11 and 13%. Now, in my lifetime, it used to be a lot higher than that. A lot higher. But it's now down to 11 to 13% and continues to head downward. So there may be a day when we're smoke-free. So what's the answer to the other question?

Like, or by way of contrast, listen to these numbers. 2.4 trillion cigarettes are sold in where, you guessed it, most populous country in the world, China. 2.4 trillion cigarettes sold in China each year. Nearly half the global total. Xi Jinping, the country's president. He actually quit smoking years ago. But his government hasn't done much to help its constituents join him. Cigarette sales are falling in most countries. In China, the numbers are going up.

Smoking there rose 39% from 2003 to 2023. Even as it fell 26% in the rest of the rest of it. of the world. And while younger people are smoking less, older ones are smoking more, in part because it's an inexpensive habit in China. A pack of cigarettes in China

cost roughly $3.3 bucks. Now, one of the first times I was in China, or the first time, 1976, I was a smoker in those days. And I tried China these cigarettes and

sorry, they were awful. They were awful. Now, maybe they're better now. I don't know and I won't be trying. There you go. There's our first end bit. Okay. Here's an interesting one,

especially at a time when there's so much debate in Canada, especially, about whether or not we've kind of abandoned and a significant part of our drive on climate. You heard the things that have been said in the last, you know, a few weeks, few months really, about whether or not the Carney government still has the same kind of feelings about climate that they did when they were campaigning

and whether they're backing off certain areas. The prime minister says long-term goals are still the same, his critics, including his former environment minister, and not so much. But with that as a backdrop, let me remind you of this. It was 80 years ago this past week, the Time magazine, which was a much more important magazine in these days that I'm talking about, 1956, than it is today. I mean, it was sort of held up as the, you know, the piece of journalism. You know, New York Times, Time magazine. Those were the biggies.

So in May, the end of May, beginning of June of 1956, 80 years ago, sorry, excuse me, 70 years ago, 70 years ago, 70 years, ago. 1965. Time Magazine had a column called One Big Greenhouse. I'm going to read you

just the beginning of it. It's interesting to read this today and realize this happened 70 years ago. Here we go. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, mankind has been burning fossil fuel.

that's coal, oil, etc. And adding its carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. In 50 years' time. Okay, so that would be 2006. Or so this process, says Director Roger Ravelle, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, may have a violent effect on the Earth's climate Dr. Ravel has not reached the stage of warning against this catastrophe,

but he and other geophysicists intend to keep watching and recording. During the International Geophysical Year, 1857 to 1858, that was the year after this editorial, teams of scientists will take inventory of the Earth's CO2 and observe how it shifts between air and air, and see. They will try to find out whether the CO2's blanket has been growing thicker and what the effect has been. When all their data have been unstudied,

they may be able to predict whether man's factory chimneys and auto exhaust will eventually cause, wait for it, will eventually cause salt water to flow in the streets of New York and London. You know, you know what that's getting at. that the CO2 was going to end up melting the ice in the Arctic. And all that extra water was going to end up flooding coastal cities and cities that sit on water inlets from the sea, like London,

certainly like New York. So there you go. There was an early warning. 1956 be prepared said time magazine this is the direction things may be heading well it seems seems they were right could you write that editorial again probably okay here's another one of the continuing stories on what's basically the story in the united states and how people are avoiding the U.S.

You know, we talk a lot about Canadians not taking their holidays, many Canadians not taking their holidays in the U.S., cutting back on travel to the U.S. Well, this story is in Agenz France Press. And we've heard hints of this in the last little while as the numbers seem to keep going up in terms of the number of people who are staying away from the U.S. There was a feeling, well, this is not going to last for long.

Some people felt that way when it started a year ago, but it's not turning out that way. Let me read a little bit of this from AFP. International tourists are staring clear of Donald Trump's America. According to new data in 2025, the U.S. saw approximately 4 million fewer international visitors compared to the previous year, making a 5.5% drop in overseas tourism.

Spending by foreign visitors also fell by more than $8 billion. Now, I know it's the states, and those numbers may seem not that big, but they're big. Following the slump in travel during the COVID-19 pandemic, last year's numbers represent the steepest annual decline in international tourism in nearly 20 years. Visitor numbers from countries around the globe, including Germany, India, France, Australia, Chile, and China have decreased.

The most significant drop came from neighboring Canada, with far fewer Canadians making the journey to the U.S. It comes after former Trump staffer revealed his four chilling predictions for what the president will do next. Well, that's all about tariffs and claims of who, where, and what he's going to annex. According to CNN, which referenced tourism data from mobile tracking company, QBEK, Canadian travel to major U.S. cities may have plummeted by as much as 42% over the past year. This figure indicates a much sharper decline than the official estimate of a 25% reduction.

in border crossings reports the mirror in the U.S. The outlet reported the traveler cite Trump's rhetoric, hardline policies, and the political turmoil surrounding the war in Iran as reasons for avoiding U.S. visits.

The tension is especially acute with Canada, and it goes on. About all the different areas, including Las Vegas, where Canadians are saying, we're not going. All kinds of, all sorts of polling data about how Canadians are upset and not going to the states, not traveling in the states. So there we go.

We used to be a country that others wanted to emulate. That narrative no longer exists. That's Juliette Kayam, who you see every once in a while on CNN. She's a faculty chair of the Homeland Security Project at the Harvard Kennedy School. She says the long-term harm is that the world will not know America. The narrative of the United States is now a country that is at best not to be respected. And at worst, a democracy that is floundering. Wow, it's hard to argue with that.

That is what's seen. That is what's felt. Okay, we're going to take a break. I'm going to come back with an interesting story. I'll tell a little anecdote first. that will lead us into it. But let's take our break first. We'll be back right after this.

And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge for this Wednesday. It's an N-Bit special. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Glad to have you with us. You're listening on Sirius X-N, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. We're so happy that you seem to enjoy

the bridge on a daily basis, weekdays, Monday to Friday. We're just, we're in those final few weeks before the summer hiatus begins at our program and so many other programs. Keep in mind that this summer, there will be an encore edition every Wednesday through the summer. And it'll twice, once in July, and once in August, there will be special summer good talks with Chantelle and Bruce. So we're not abandoning you completely. We will be there. And obviously, if something extremely out of the ordinary happens,

we'll probably find a way to get back on the year. I know last summer, summer before many of you wrote, where's Janice? We've got to hear from Janice. Janice is allowed to take a holiday too. She's allowed to have a hiatus. But we hear you on that front. If there's anything really big,

we will find some way to get on the air. Okay, let me, I was going to tell you a little story. When I was living in Churchill, Manitoba, so this is 1967. No, sorry, 68. The fall of 1968 is when I moved to Churchill. I was supposed to be there for two weeks, filling in for a ticket agent, I think it was,

who worked for Trans Air, the airline, a regional airline. But that guy never came back from his holidays. And so they said, okay, Mansbridge, you want to keep your job? staying in Churchill. So that's what happened. And for the first year, I lived in the Churchill Hotel, which was a wonderful old hotel, and I got a cut rate on a deal after a card game with the owner. And I ended up, he said, okay, I'm going to give you a year in the hotel. But this is the only room you can have.

So I said, I'm fine. We've got a room in a hotel. I wasn't happy. There was only one problem. First of all, there was only two floors in the hotel. And the first floor was the bar. So the second floor was the room. And I had the room that was immediately above the main bar and where the occasional band played immediately below my room.

So that was like every night to 1 a.m., at least. and was a great band, but they really only knew a few songs. So you kind of got used to them, especially on the wings of a snow white dev. Yeah, I knew every word of that one. Anyway, I was living in the hotel. And in that first year,

I was working full-time at Transair, the airline. But shortly after I got there, somebody heard my voice in the airport and they offered me a job of the radio station. Long story, you've heard it before. And because they couldn't get anybody to fill the late night show. So I did that. So none of these paid very much. My trans air, my main job paid me $200, I think it was $225 a month.

That was what they paid me. So getting the second job was handy. It's helpful. Now, I wasn't flush in cash, but I had always wanted to buy stock in something. I just thought, man, if I ever have some money, I want to buy shares in something. So I had a little bit of money. Now, we're not talking much. You don't save much when you're only making $225 a month.

But I decided, okay, I've got a little bit of money. If I'm going to buy some shares, what would it be? So I'd always been fascinated by the airline business. I mean, I was working in it. But ever since I was a kid, I used to look at planes, and I was fascinated. My dad flew in Lancaster's during the Second World War when he was in the Royal Air Force.

So there's a bit of connection there. And I tried flying myself. I hadn't worked out so well. Anyway, I decided Pan Am, Pan Am Airways, which was kind of the signature airline out there, certainly of the North American Airlines, and pretty much the world airlines. Pan Am was one of the first airlines to start flying regular commercial traffic across the Atlantic and across the Pacific. they had the great big aircraft like, you know, the 707 and the 747. So I thought, okay, Pan Am.

And it was a great success story business-wise. I thought, okay, Pan Am. So I'm in Churchill. It's not like there's, you know, offices that sell shares, investment houses. The only place you could go was to the bank. And there were two banks. was one in Churchill and there was one just up the road in Fort Churchill. So I went to one of these two banks.

I can't remember whether there was Bank of Montreal or RBC. I can't remember. Anyway, which one it was. But anyway, I went there and that's where you bought stock. And so I said, I want to buy some stock. I want to buy some Pan American airline stock. And they said, okay, we can do that. what do you want to how much do you want to buy now i can't remember how much it costs it wasn't very

much and i said i can i i'd like to buy five shares not like a thousand shares but five shares this was going to be my push into the great world of owning stock looking at the dow Jones every day following my shares. Anyway, they kind of snickered, but went ahead and we bought the shares. And I went back every day saying if my shares arrived, thinking like something was going to happen,

I was going to see a certificate or something. Of course, that never came, but the notice came that, in fact, I'd got my shares. So there I was, a stockholder with my first shares, on Pan Am Airways. And it was a turning point for Pan Am. It didn't mean there was a terrific new investor in the company. Something happened to Pan Am.

There was a collection of different things. Some mistakes internally, business-wise, rising price of oil, crushed by the early 70s oil crisis. And Pan Am stock went in the tank. dropped like a rock and I was left holding this you know not worthless I'm still worth something

but not anywhere near what I paid for it so my first experience in the stock market was not a good one and then things continued to just keep getting worse and then there was the terrible Lockerbie crash and that that was pretty much it

for Pan Am they went under. So why am I telling you this story about Pan Am? Well, it's because for our NBit special, when I picked up a copy of this from CNN Travel, the headline is, can you bring a legendary airline back to life? Pan Am is about to find out.

I thought, man, I better read this. Maybe I go dig up the stock. So let me read a little bit of this because I find it interesting. I don't know. You know, Pan Am is like Pan Am is Pan Am. Anybody over a certain age is going to go Pan Am. That was the big deal in the airline business. Few brands in aviation have been as influential as Pan Am.

Founded in 1927 as Pan American Airways, this legendary airline had a key role in defining the modern air travel experience. Under the leadership of its energetic and visionary founder, Pan Am not only pioneered long-haul routes across two oceans and set new standards of service, but was instrumental in the development of some of the most iconic passenger aircraft to ever take to the skies, including, hey, as I said, the 707 and the 747. For nearly 40 years, Pan Am was the most prominent U.S. carrier

internationally, and a symbol of American soft power. However, a combination of questionable, strategic decisions, and external shocks, such as the 70s oil crisis, the 88 Lockerbie bombing, led to its closure in 91. Nevertheless, the Pan Am brand became so intertwined with the idea of a so-called golden era of air travel, that its name remains a symbol of cosmopolitan sophistication to this day. The appeal of the Pan Am brand is such that several attempts have since been made to try to resurrect it in one form or another, and the latest and most ambitious of them all is beginning to take shape. In February of 2024, a group of investors led by a California entrepreneur named Craig Carter

bought the Pan Am trademark and its related intellectual property for an undisclosed sum, with the idea of resurrecting the legendary airline as a lifestyle brand. In the future, we could be staying in Pan Am hotels or waiting for our flights in Pan Am airport lounges. We could be toting a Pan Am bag as we eat in a Pan Am restaurant. Even better, we could be taking to the skies in a Pan Am plane, delivering a taste of the glory days of flying to frazzled 21st century travelers. but that all depends if the new owners can pull it off.

There really is a nostalgic factor to this Pan Am story. I mean, you see the old pictures of what it looked like on the aircraft. Everybody in suit and tie, everybody's dressed up carefully. You know, very nice meal served on tables that are propped up between the seats, not on little foldouts from the backseat of another seat, you know, traveler. Okay, just two more paragraphs here. Reseracting a brand after it has

laid dormant for 30 years is not for the faint hearted, but in the case of Pan Am, three decades of dormancy seems to have awakened nostalgia in many aviation fans' minds. How else to explain the excitement in June of last year, just a year ago, when a Pan Am branded airplane set off on a 12-day air cruise to historical Pan Am destinations,

Bermuda, Lisbon, Marseilles, London, and Shannon in Ireland, were the stops for the passengers who had each paid around $60,000 to relive the spirit of Pan Am. Carter, the guy who bought them branding, won't confirm how many paying passengers were on board, but the aircraft was a Boeing 757, leased from Iceland air, but painted, painted, sorry, in the classic Pan Am livery, was configured with 50 full lie-flat seats.

So Pan Am, maybe that'll make my stock sore. I don't even know where that stock is. I don't know whether I dumped it or whether I still have it somewhere. whatever I wherever it is it's not worth anything anymore okay here's your next

end bit and it's an airline story as well you know how I like airline stores this one's important and we should all keep this in mind those of us who travel

a lot on aircraft and I do I know some people say you're contributing to the climate problem Yes, I am, but at the same time I am, I take out, you know, I pay for, I can't remember what the term is, but when I, on flights I take, I pay the extra as a fund goes into climate issues. Okay, this is in the Washington Post. the headline is please stop touching the flight attendants

now at first you're going to go come on there's only a couple of people who do that kind of sexist stuff actually it's much bigger than that it's a bigger issue it's a bigger problem Hannah Samson wrote this just a couple of days ago in the Washington Post

here's what she is part of what she says. Michelle Montez, a flight attendant for 20 years, said barely a flight goes by where someone doesn't poke, tap, prod, or otherwise touch her. It's almost a rare occurrence when it doesn't happen, she said. In a video clip from the Jump Seat Chronicles podcast,

which she co-hosts with colleagues Joshua Boyd and Darian Foy, The trio said they've heard the complaint from multiple people in the industry and experienced it themselves, getting poked in the arm, the side, the rear end. Many consider it a violation, even if passengers are not acting maliciously. You can talk to any flight attendant for any airline, and they will all agree that that's something that we cannot stand and that we deal with so often. It's insane, said Foy. who said he's been pinched on his butt multiple times.

Pinched? Pinched on his butt, please. Flight attendants know you need them for a drink or a snack to toss your trash to answer a question, but they really, really want you to communicate your needs without using physical contact. It's a situation that unfolds so frequently on play. that some cabin crew wear patches, lanyards, or decorated aprons with the no-touching plea.

Sarah Nelson, she's the international president of the Association of Flight Attendants, said there may be several factors at play. Passengers and crew are in close quarters on a plane. Travelers may feel like flight attendants are part of the furniture. People are out of their ordinary routines. And I, you know, I get that. I kind of see that when I travel. You know, yeah, it's not normal.

You've got like, certainly on the major planes, you've got like a couple of hundred people crammed into this little aluminum tube hurtling across the skies at 500, 600 miles an hour. And there are four or six flight attendants. women and men who are there to help those hundreds. But they're right there. They're like just beside you, walking up and down the aisle, maybe looking at the people on the other side.

And there's this temptation to reach out to talk with them that sometimes people get carried away on how they try to attract their attention. Sarah Nelson says all of those things sort of come together to also create this dynamic where you might do something that you would never think of doing in another situation. I hear that. Flight attendants would prefer that passengers interact with them like they would with employees at any other place of business, said Sam Wilkins, a flight attendant for 28 years and

first vice president of the union local that represents Southwest flight attendants. You probably wouldn't go into a restaurant and poke your waitress. You wouldn't go into a coffee shop and grab the shirt of your barista. She said the best way for passengers to get the flight attendants' attention is to use their voice, followed by a gesture or wave. Crew members of frequently urged travelers not to overuse the call button for simple requests, but Wilkins said that a good option for an urgent matter including a medical emergency,

she emphasized that flight attendant's first priority is safety over customer service. Boyd, one of the podcast hosts on a flight attendant for 11 years, said if it comes down to touching or using the button, use the button. That's what the call lights for. Okay. There you go. That's going to do it for today. Yeah, we have more hand bits here on our overuse of phones,

but we've kind of done that, especially for teenagers. They've got to put them down at night. People are talking about phone-free zones within their house because of this epidemic, really, of young people using their phones at night versus sleeping at night. You know, teenagers in the... their formative years need at least eight hours of sleep a night. And some of the studies being done on regular phone users and doom scrollers is that they're

using it like they're sleeping like six hours a night. That's not going to cut it. Those are the formative years. And so zone free, phone free zones in their houses would work like this. Simple, really. Phones can't be used in the bedroom. And nobody can use them. Not just the kids, not the adults.

Because there's an adult problem, too. I know that. You know, you either fall asleep late after doom scrolling, or you wake up in the middle of the night and you go, well, let me just check that sports score. No. Not a good thing. So anyway, there were, there have been pieces on that recently,

and I'm sure you've seen them. Okay. That, as I say, is going to do it today. It's, you know, it's been a crazy week, but it's the kind of week that I, where I look forward to hearing what you have to say on the identity question, and I look forward to seeing what Bruce and Chantelle will say

on Friday on Good Talk, because those shows both coming up in the next little while. And, you know, I probably shouldn't get through this show without saying how sad it is to watch, watch what's been going on at a network that I have a lot of respect for, that's CBS. But that respect has slid downhill with the clear ownership changes and what that's meant for the direction of CBS News,

one of the great news organizations that we've witnessed in the last 100 years. person radio than in television Cronkite Murrow Rather Rather still kicking it whatever he is

90 something has a great substat column comes out a couple of times a week Cronkite Murrow of course long since passed but they would be horrified all of them

and all of the some really good friends of mine who have worked and still work at CBS at what's been going on with the leadership changes, the editorial direction changes, and this week the final blow-up inside 60 minutes when Scott Pelley, a former anchor

the CBS evening news, of the last 20 years being a correspondent at 60 minutes, basically accused the new leadership of murdering 60 minutes, the most successful news magazine on television, and one of the most successful television programs of everything. So that is, that's quite something to watch, and it's sad to watch, and it is, there's an

element of that happening at all the major news organizations in the United States. Let's hope that pandemic doesn't cross the border. Everybody's struggling. We're trying to define that. themselves in this new age of communications, trying to find the right platform, the right landscape to connect with viewers and readers and listeners, not the way CBS is choosing. All right, that's going to wrap it up for this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge.

It's great to talk with you, as always, and look forward to talking to you again tomorrow. That program coming up in just under 24 hours.