Tobacco Documents Online

3060 2592 MICHAEL PETERSON, Pet., Re-Ex. i0 15 2O 25 Court since it arose in the course of that cross-examination and it goes to complete the witness' answer. Me BAKER: No, no, not necessarily, My Lord. In fact, the witness went on to say at line eighteen (18) when I asked him -- well, I had previously asked him why he hadn't used the document in his Appendix I? He said it's just a document for the use of one man. Me IRVING: M'hm. Me BAKER: I mean, that doesn't entitle Mr. Irving in a re-examination or a re-direct to file evidence that he hasn't previously thought necessary or useful to file. Me IRVING: My Lord... THE COURT: No, but you have questioned him on that. It doesn't go to the truth of whatever's contained in that -- where is it? In that -- where is it... Me IRVING: Precisely, My Lord. THE COURT: ...in that document. It's not volunteered for that. It goes to the fact that he had AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Vilaire & Associ~s Lt~e

3061 2593 MICHAEL PETERSON, Pet., Re-Ex. i0 15 20 25 read such a statement and to the fact that what he says is based on a piece of paper. I'll take it under reserve. I'll allow the production under reserve. Me IRVING: RJR-28. THE COURT: Under reserve. Me IRVING: Under reserve. Q- Mr. Waterson, Mr. Baker asked you if you knew what the trends of consumption were in Norway prior to the imposition of the ban in nineteen seventy-five (1975). I'm putting before you a document coming from my friends, it's page thirty-three o eight (3308). Me BAKER: Of what? Me IRVING: Of your numbering system of government documents. Me BAKER: Oh! Me IRVING: Q- And I'll show it to you so you can ... Me BAKER: That's the trouble when you don't have a computer. AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Di~i~io~ a~ Pierre V;lair, & Asso¢i~s L,~e

3062 2594 MICHAEL PETERSON, Pet., Re-Ex. 5 i0 15 26/0160 20 25 THE COURT: Sit down, Mr. Waterson. A- Thank you, My Lord, it is difficult standing all the time. Me BAKER: How are you going to deal with that document? You haven't yet identified how you got it. Me IRVING: Q- Mr. Waterson, while this is being looked at, there's really only one other subject I want to deal with in any event. Without going back to the actual reports, the original expert report which you filed, which is now RJR-27 had a table attached to it which showed total consumption figures in a large number of countries, and the tables attached to the expert report now filed for the purpose of this trial, shows per capita figures, and I would just like to have you clear up, please, the question of why you thought it appropriate to use per capita figures in the tables now produced to the Court rather than total consumption figures. And to explain again what the difference is between them? A- The difference between total consumption figures and per capita figures is very simple. The total -- to arrive at per capita figures, one takes the consumption figures and divides by the number of people in any country. So, AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Di,,i~ioo de Pierre Vilaire & Asso¢;~s Ltge

3063 2595 MICHAEL PETERSON, Pet., Re-Ex. l0 15 26/019420 25 for example, if we had a consumption figure of a hundred (100) and we had one hundred (i00) people in a country, the per capita consumption figure would be one (i), the consumption figure would be a hundred (100). The reason for taking per capita figures is because in a period of population growth or decline, it will tend to give a more accurate -- accurate isn't the right word -- it will give a more reasonable impression of what is happening to consumption than simply using total consumption. However, since in most Western European countries the differences in population growth are not immense, it does tend, over a short period of time, to be relevant. Over a long period of time the differences can be quite useful to see. I decided to put in the per capita figures alone in the second report to avoid burdening the Court with a vast amount of paper. THE COURT: Where did you take your population figure? A- From the O.E.C.D., unless otherwise stated on the figures. O.E.C.D. population figures are widely regarded by economists as the most appropriate ones to use in international comparison purposes. THE COURT: I'm not trying to trick you, I'm just trying to AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Vilalre & Associ~s Ltge

3064 2596 MICHAEL PETERSON, Pet., Re-Ex. l0 15 20 25 5 A- understand. For example, in the T.B.S. 176 document, they use the sta- -- I don't know if they take the demographic from the Demographic Yearbook published in United Nations? That is an alternative source. That's an alternative ... It's an alternative source. In all cases, the population figures come from the countries concerned, so if either United Nations or the OECD wishes to know how many people there are in Canada, they would go to Stats Can and then simply reprint those figures as official OECD or WHO or whatever data. The figures are nearly always derived from the original country because no one else will bother to count the number of people in any country other than the country itself; only the Canadian government will count the number of Canadians. So really the figures nearly all derive from the same source. Where the differences arise is in attempting to compare many countries. You might decide to take a different level of comparisons. So for example, you might decide in the United Kingdom to exclude Northern Ireland or, in the case of France, to exclude -- I can't think of an example -- the little enclave in the south, or in the case of Belgium and Luxembourg, you might decide to count the two (2) together. One (i) other AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Vilaire & Associ~s Lt~e

3065 2597 MICHAEL PETERSON, Pet., Re-Ex. I0 15 20 25 source might decide to keep them separate as two (2) individual countries. So the differences will be minor ones of that kind, not significant. THE COURT: Sorry, Mr. Irving. Me IRVING: Not a bit, My Lord. Did Your Lordship have anything further on that -- on that issue? THE COURT: No, no, that's it. Me IRVING: Q- Mr. Waterson, a trivial point: but if my friend will look at the transcript, page twenty-one twenty-three (2123) -- that's the thirtieth (30th) of October -- the transcript, volume fifteen (15) for the thirtieth (30th) of October, page twenty-one twenty-three (2123). Me BAKER: Are we going to correct something? Twenty-one twenty-three (2123)? Well, I don't understand it any better now that you've clarified it for me, but "contravene" is more than likely the word. Me IRVING: Q- Mr. Waterson ... AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Vilaire & Associ~s Lt~e

3066 2598 MICHAEL PETERSON, Pet., Re-Ex. 5 i0 15 20 25 Me BAKER: But we're going -- you know ... Me IRVING: I know, but ... Me BAKER: • .. we're going to go through the transcripts to correct them together. Me IRVING: ... Mr. Waterson won't be around. There's just one (i) -- there's a couple of sentences on that page, My Lord, which don't -- don't come across in the transcript as --as making any sense, and I'm going to put them -- show them to Mr. Waterson. I'm pointing out page twenty-one twenty-three (2123), and starting at line twenty (20), there's a sentence which now reads: "These kinds of campaigns, which could clearly be set up within the U.K., I don't believe," -- and it now reads -- "though, would contravene any competitive legislation." Could you just look at that, Mr. Waterson, and -- and tell the Court whether you meant to say that you didn't believe that they could contravene any competition legislation? AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division ~e Pierre Vilalre & As,o¢i~s Ll~e

3067 2599 MICHAEL PETERSON, Pet., Re-Ex. i0 15 2O 25 A- I think that is a more likely statement, yes. That is almost certainly what I intended to say. THE COURT: They couldn't contravene any what? Me IRVING: They would not contravene any competition legislation, as we would understand competition legislation and anti-trust legislation. Me BAKER: Anything that's reasonable you can correct, Mr. Irving. Me IRVING: I'd just as soon correct it from the witnesses on this side of the Atlantic, Mr. Baker. Q- And at the next page we're talking about generic advertising, and you say, starting at about line eleven (ii): "it is more difficult" ... "It" being to persuade people to buy more books in general or buy any product in general. You say: "It is more difficult in getting them to buy one particular type of book or category of book or title of book". and then you go on, and I'd ask you to do is just read that and explain to the Court what you meant to say. A- I think what I meant to say was I think the very absence AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, O~v~,io~ de Pierre ~/i~oire & Associ~s %'#e

3068 2600 MICHAEL PETERSON, Pet., Re-Ex. i0 15 20 25 of generic advertising campaigns is a pointer to the probable lack of effectiveness, is a pointer rather than is a point. Q- You use "pointer" in the sense of an indication? A- In the sense of an indication. Me BAKER: Strange language they speak in the United Kingdom. THE COURT: They say the same thing about ours. Me BAKER: I'm sure they do. A- Only about gasoline. Me BAKER: Careful, or I'll make another accusation. Me IRVING: And I have no further questions, thank you, My Lord. Me BAKER: My Lord, if I might, I know... Me IRVING: Remaining standing. Me BAKER: No, no, it's all right, you can sit down. I know what your normal rule is in respect of re-cross-examination. It's a very small point: Mr. Waterson made a statement in respect of Sir Richard Doll yesterday, and my friend AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Vilaire 8, Associ~s Lt~e

3069 2601 MICHAEL PETERSON, Pet., Re-Ex. i0 15 2O 25 just referred at page twenty-three ninety-seven (2397) of the transcript, and he said that Doll said that: "It's safer to smoke low-tar cigarettes rather than high-tar cigarettes." I'm quoting now. I have the article that he's referring to and I seek the permission of the Court to clarify what the witness has just said so that the record is straight. I don't think my friend should have any problem with that. Me IRVING: I doubt it very much, but I'd just like to see the article, if I might. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY Me ROGER E. BAKER, Q.C. on behalf of Respondent Q- Now, you see, I just want to make sure that ... you see, yesterday, you said -- I don't want to mislead you; you might want to read that -- you see, you say that Doll said that it was safer to smoke low-tar cigarettes than high-tar cigarettes. A- Yes. Q- You said that, right? A- I said that. Q- Then you referred today to an article that you read somewhere? AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de P~erre Vilalre 8, Associ~s Ll~e