Tobacco Documents Online

433 NEIL E. COLLISHAW (for the Applicant) Argument & Examination by Me Potter BY MR. BAKER: i0 2O 3O 4O Yes. BY MR. POTTER: ... of the advertising ban. And now I come to a brand new undertaking. Since this most recent one has to do with the comprehensive approach minus restrictions on advertising. I want a separate one on the comprehensive approach minus the ban on advertising, because to me restrict- ions and ban are something different. BY MR. BAKER: To the extent that the documents exist and to the exist that they're not covered by Confidence, we'll make them available to you. BY MR. POTTER: That's fine. BY MR. BAKER: And again, if we discover that documents exist over which a ~onfidence is claimed under 36.3 we will equally advise you of that fact without giving you details of the document itself. BY MR. POTTER: Fine. BY MR. BAKER: We'll deal with it "en temps et lieu". BY MR. POTTER: Thank you. And let's make this one then ITL-12, is it?

434 NEIL E. COLLISHAW (for the Applicant) Examination by Me Potter i0 20 3O 40 Q. Now, before coming forward in the chronology, Mr. Collishaw, closer to today, I notice from this document that we've just looked at, ITL-12, the April document in which the C.T.M.C.'s Voluntary Advertising Code was being discussed, there are clear exchanges between the C.T.MoC. and you and your colleagues, are there not? A. Between the C.T.M.C. and my colleagues. I wasn't involved in the ... Q. What I'm trying to get at is you're aware that the C.T.M.C. and your Department and your colleagues and Health and Welfare are in regular communication. A. Yes. Q. And there have been from time to time from Health and Welfare to the C.T.M.C. various suggestions and requests as to what should go in the Code and how the tobacco manufacturers should behave. Is that not correct? A. There have been various discussions of what would go in the Code, yes. Q. I'd now like to go a little bit into the past only to be able to make this point about 1986. There was a letter discussed, I believe it was yesterday; it's a De- cember 20, 1983 letter to a Dr. Cleaver Keenan and it's at page 3622, and the entire document goes on to 3627, and this is another letter, I believe, Mr. Collishaw -- you can confirm for us -- in a series of letters, of exchanges, between the Minister, whoever he or she may be at the time, and various citiziens who write in with comments or requests. A. Yes. Q. Do you confirm that? A. Yes. Q. And we can see what appears, strictly in rela- tion to all the other documents we've discussed, a likely stock paragraph, the one at the very bottom ... A. Yes. Q .... regarding Norway and Finland that that doesn't work. I'm not going to spend time on that except to ask you to confirm the same things about this paragraph as about all the others. BY MR. BAKER: Well, before Mr. Collishaw does that, Mr. Potter, let's be clear about somethings. Mr. Collishaw testified yesterday because he was shown a document which contained

435 NEIL E. COLLISHAW (for the Applicant) Examination by Me Potter i0 2O 3O 40 a variety of stock answers or options, as it were, for some- body to be signing, generally a Minister, and he was asked ... he was shown a number of letters and asked if this is consistent with the way things are done in the Government, that people draft letters and they put options in and would this be one of those letters possibly, and the answer was yes. But I think it improper to try and make the case that any letter, which this man did not sign, that happens to be found in the basement of the Department of Health signed by, appearing to be signed by a Minister in 1983, where it deals with Norway and Finland, contained a stock answer. It's as though to say that Monique B4gin or any other Minister wasn't capable of sitting down and drafting a letter to a citizen. So with the caveat in mind that it's pure specula- tion on the witness's part in respect of his letter or any other specific letter to which he was not the recipient or the writer, let him answer the question. If you want him to speculate, he'll speculate, but that's all he's doing. BY MR. POTTER: Thank you, Mr. Baker. Q. The reason I'm going back to this letter and not dwelling too much on this paragraph about Norway and Finland, because, of course, we've seen that in so many other lettters, is I'm interested in this paragraph here, the penultimate paragraph on page 3623. And in the last line was read: "Currently, the industry is making good progress in reducing the level of tar and carbon monoxide towards an agreed-upon target of twelve (12) milligrams for each by the end of 1984." And in my copy, Mr. Collishaw, I've underlined the word "agreed" A. Yes.

436 NEIL E. COLLISHAW (for the Applicant) Examination by Me Potter i0 2O 3O 4O Q. Can you confirm to us, Mr. Collishaw, that Health and Welfare asked for and obtained the agreement of what the Minister refers to as "the industry" to reduce tar and carbon monoxide levels? A. Yes, there was an agreement around reduction. Q. And are you aware, Mr. Collishaw, whether the agreement went further? Was the agreement not also that there should be reduction of these levels but also that there should be encouragement to consumers to switch to the lower levels? A. I don't recall that part of the agreement. The agreement was originally struck before I started working with the Bureau of Tobacco Control and Biometrics. Q. But didn't your duties include monitoring whether the agreement was honored in succeeding years? A. Yes. Q. And did you not in fact note that Canadian consumers of tobacco products did indeed switch to cigarettes having lower tar and carbon monoxide? A. I noted that. I also noted that there were substantial reformulations of cigarettes so that cigarettes with the same brand had the levels of tar and particularly carbon monoxide of cigarettes were reduced in the manu- facturing process. Q. I see. Just to understand, I think what you're saying is that you noticed that some smokers stuck with their brands but the brands levels of tar and carbon monoxide were reduced by the industry? A. Yes. Q. And other consumers actually switched from one brand to another having lower levels of those elements. Yes. And you noticed this in your monitoring of the market. A. Q. Yes. And in your monitoring of the market, Mr. Colli- shaw, did you not notice that the consumers who stuck with their brand, the carbon monoxide and tar levels of which were reduced, were encouraged to do so by advertising? BY MR. BAKER: Could you repeat that question please?

437 NEIL E. COLLISHAW (for the Applicant) Examination by Me Potter i0 2O 3O 40 BY THE COURT REPORTER: "Q And in your monitoring of the market, Mr. Collishaw, did you not notice that the consumers who stuck with their brand, the carbon monoxide and tar levels of which were reduced, were encouraged to do so by advertising?" BY MR. BAKER: I object to the question as formulated. It is, I believe, open to Mr. Potter to ask Mr. Collishaw in his capacity as the head of the Unit what the monitoring process of habits of Canadian consumers disclosed over a period of time, but to ask him his opinion as to whether they were induced to use cigarettes of a lower tar and carbon monoxide composition as a consequence of advertising calls for an opinion of Mr. Collishaw and, as I've said many times, I don't believe that you're entitled to ask him his opinions on such matters. BY MR. POTTER: Well, without agreeing with your objection, I stated at the outset yesterday that I would try and stay within the confines of your objections to any questions asking for opinions, and that is why I was careful not to use the word "induce" I was careful to use the word "encouraged". Q. Now, Mr. Collishaw, you monitor not only trends in consumption but do you not also monitor what's happening, or did you not, while it was going on monitor what was going on in the advertising of cigarettes? A. Monitored to a limited extent. Q. And were you not through that monitoring able to see that what Monique B4gin refers to as "the industry" -- I take it it's crystal clear to everybody that that is the industry of tobacco manufacturers -- that they in fact used advertising to encourage? Whether the consumers were induced or not is perhaps a matter of opinion, which your Counsel finds you unqualified to deal with. But did you not in fact see that the advertising was used to give encoura- gement to smokers to stick with brands to tar levels of

438 NEIL E. COLLISHAW (for the Applicant) Examination by Me Potter i0 20 30 40 which were reduced, or to switch to others which had lower tar content? BY MR. BAKER: This man has absolutely no competence to comment on advertising of an industry. He's not an advertising executive, he's not an advertising analyst, he's not been qualified as such, as his opinions as to what the ads did or didn't do in terms of enticement or encouragement to smoke reduced tar contented cigarettes is completely irrele- vant and I will instruct the witness not to answer that question, Mr. Potter. BY MR. POTTER: All right. We'll file that Exhibit as ITL-13. Q. We're back in 1986, Mr. Collishaw. We're back right after the April document that you saw and which was ITL-12, and that was April 7, 1986, the document which raised and which confirmed that there was discussion of a lot of policy alternatives regarding tobacco advertising. And I now put you in May of 1986 and put before you pages from the Hansard for the House of Commons, May 26, 1986, Hansard page 13623, and I draw your attention to a question put by Miss Lynn McDonald, and she ends up saying after a series of questions to which The Honorable Mr. Speaker should surely have objected because it was an accumulation of questions, she says: "Why does he not deliver the real blow in favor of the health of Canadians, especially of children, and ban tobacco advertising all together?" And turning the page, we see that your Minister replied, very calmly and assuredly: "I am saying to her very directly that if she is an expert in this field at all and if she has looked at the effect that the banning of advertising has on reducing the

439 NEIL E. COLLISHAW (for the Applicant) Examination by Me Potter i0 2O 3O 4O number of smokers, then she will know that it is painfully few. There are other steps which one has to take. It might be good visuals, and she often deals with visuals rather than actualities. I deal with realities." BY MR. BAKER: Now that you have made a speech, do I assume, dare to assume that you might have a question or has your mission been accomplished, Mr. Potter? BY MR. POTTER: Mission not accomplished just yet, Mr. Baker. I'll now ask my question. Q. Now, Mr. Collishaw, were you involved in making sure the Minister was prepared to deal with a question whether or not advertising should be banned? BY MR. BAKER: In 1986? BY MR. POTTER: Yes. A. In this precise instance? Q. In 1986 were you involved in preparing the Minister to make sure that he was able to deal with a question relating to the prospect of banning advertising? BY MR. BAKER: When you say "a" question, I presume in fairness to the witness, Mr. Potter, you're referring to the question that was put by Ms. McDonald to Mr. Epp? BY MR. POTTER: OUS . Well, no. In fairness, Mr. Baker, that's preposter- Mr. Collishaw obviously wasn't in the House of Commons

44O NEIL E. COLLISHAW (for the Applicant)Examination by Me Potter & Argument i0 20 30 4O having the question come to him. Mr. Epp obviously was prepared either by himself or by other people to deal with that question should it come up. BY MR. BAKER: That question - yes, that's what I'm referring to. BY MR. POTTER: Whether it came from his particular person or in that particular forum or not, someone prepared it, either himself or someone else. BY MR. BAKER: Yes. BY MR. POTTER: And I'm asking Mr. Collishaw whether he was involved in preparing the Minister on that question of what Mr. Epp refers to as "realities" A. I may well have had a hand in preparing briefing notes on the request of the Minister or other senior officials of the Department dealing with this question in 1986. Q. And Mr. Collishaw, when ... First of all, did you know in May or early June of 1986 that Mr. Epp had said this to Parliament? A. Yes. Q. And when you learned that he had said this, were you surprises? BY MR. BAKER: Is his surprise or his reaction to the speech of a Minister of any particular relevance, Mr. Potter? BY MR. POTTER: Well, absolutely.

441 NEIL E. COLLISHAW (for the Applicant) Argument & Examination by Me Potter !0 2O 3O 4O BY MR. BAKER: Why? BY MR. POTTER: Is Mr. Epp saying what his Department has told him to say and has advised him to say or is he saying some- thing completely different? BY MR. BAKER: Well, it might be open to you to ask the question if they had other information that was inconsistent with what you have just referred to, but ... BY MR. POTTER: Well, that's fine ... BY MR. BAKER: ... but in respect of his own personal reaction or his surprise? BY MR. POTTER: Q. Were you in possession, Mr. Epp, of evidence which ... A. I'm not Mr. Epp. Q. I beg your pardon, you're certainly not. That's right. Mr. Collishaw, were you in possession in May or early June of 1986 of any evidence which would contradict your Minister? A. There is some evidence around about reductions in the numbers of smokers following advertising bans. It's hard to know what Mr. Epp meant by "painfully few", so it's hard for me to answer the question. Q. Well, you remember similar questions yesterday, Mr. Collishaw, when you said "Yes, well we did have some things in the file but ..." A. Well, this pertains to ... he's talking about reducing the number of smokers and he says "The reductions in the numbers of smokers is painfully few." Well, you

442 NEIL E. COLLISHAW (for the Applicant) Examination by Me Potter i0 20 30 40 know, there is some suggestive evidence -- I believe we were looking at a document that referred to some of it yester- day -- that there were reductions in the numbers of smokers following bans in advertising in various countries. Now, it's difficult for me to know what Mr. Epp meant by " painfully few". BY MR. BAKER: Don't speculate, Mr. Colloshaw. BY MR. POTTER: Q. Going back in chronology, Mr. Collishaw, there may be other documents, but the last one which we have seen here in your Examination so far which deals with the question is November of 1984, and it is Exhibit RJR-5. It is the letter to Mr. Wiebe ,andthat letter, November of 1984, from the Minister, the same Minister, says: "A total ban on advertising may have some intuitive appeal. Unfortunately, it has had little effect on tobacco sales in countries where it has been tried." A. Yes. Q. Okay? Now, we've already gone over a succession of letters like this ... A. Yes. Q .... and I've asked you the same question: Were you possession or was your Department in possession of evi- dence which would have contradicted this? A. Yes. Q. Your answers were uniformly "Well, we had some statements from people that disagreed with this but the evidence confirmed this statement." Ao Yes. Q. Which evidence did you obtain between November 19, 1984 and May 26, 1986 which would contradict the state- ment made in the November 19, 1984 letter, RJR-5? A. I don't recall receiving any evidence that would have contradicted it. Q. Thank you.