Roger Pomerleau

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

Last weekend, his own supporters drew the labour minister's attention to the catastrophic effects this quasi-ban on tobacco sponsorships will have on Montreal's economy. Content with blindly defending his government's position on the matter, he added insult to injury by stating that, once they were through with tobacco, the Minister of Health would probably address alcohol.

Are we to understand from the irresponsible remarks made by the minister that his government is set to take the absurdity of its policies one step further by threatening to ban beer sponsorship of sports events? Does the minister mean to say that someone, somewhere in the federal government is preparing to shut down the Molson Centre or to prevent Labatts from sponsoring the Expos?

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the amendments to Bill C-71. I would like to thank the hon. member for his passionate speech; it was probably because of the subject: tobacco.

The core of the problem with this bill is indeed sponsorship. The measures included in the bill could eliminate a number of cultural, sporting, and social events. Most Bloc members decided today, a Friday, to come back from Montreal to oppose this crazy bill, as Quebecers have asked us to.

On this entire issue, things are far from clear. Members opposite are telling us that it is clearly a health issue, and that we must legislate. Everybody recognizes that smoking is not healthy, and that we must do all we can to prevent our young people from starting to smoke. Unlike the two previous speakers, I am a long time smoker and, despite several tries, I have not been able to quit. I think it is important to tell our young people not to start smoking, so they will avoid the problem of trying to quit later.

Since we agreed on this in principle, we voted for the bill at second reading. However, we must admit that sponsored cultural and sporting events are basically healthy and may even encourage potential smokers to be more active. We know that, generally speaking, athletes are not heavy smokers.

We are here today to speak to this bill. I would like to point out that not too many members across the way stood up for Quebec's interests in this matter. If I may, I would like to quote from an article published in La Presse on February 16, in which the Liberal member for Outremont, who was just mentioned as the exception in that he stood up for Quebec, is quoted by Réjean Tremblay as saying something like the following: ``Everyone agrees with the intent of the legislation put forward by the Minister of Health of

Canada." So do we. "Trade in tobacco should be regulated, not with a view to ban its sale but rather to control it. We must look at the 10 per cent rule for advertising, the notion of site for events, merchandise and the possible extension of the transition period".

Note that, after this was written, we have never seen the hon. member for Outremont again, and there is a fundamental reason for this: he is a Quebecer, a Liberal member from Quebec who, even if he wanted to defend Quebec or positions taken in Quebec, could not do so because his caucus, which is of another mind, would not let him. That is a fact, and that is why we will not see the hon. member for Outremont stand up and speak on this issue.

We must recognize also that the spinoffs generated by sponsorships are very important to Canadians and Quebecers. I would like to mention some of the major events that will be affected, some of which have already been mentioned: the Just for Laughs Festival, the Montreal Grand Prix, the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix, the Montreal film festival, the Toronto film festival, the Montreal jazz festival, the Vancouver jazz festival, the Benson and Hedges international championships, the Player's international tennis championships and many other sports and cultural events.

As we know, the cultural community too is not at all happy with the proposed limitation of sponsorships because it will lose a major source of revenues at a time of government budget cuts. We know how much culture has always suffered from lack of funding. The cultural sector had finally managed to find patrons, but we are now taking them away. As my colleague was saying, we are stopping something that is working when we should be going after lots of other things.

As for revenues, here are some data about it. According to the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council, sponsorship of arts amounts to about $25 million whereas that of sports organizations amounts to about $35 million, totalling $60 million in Canada, including close to $30 million in Quebec. That is why we are in the House today, to defend this position that should be considered.

The health minister questions these figures, saying that, for several events, only a small proportion of the funding is coming from tobacco companies. However, he cannot say what the sponsorships amount to and, moreover, he fails to mention that for some events the proportion is much higher than what he is says.

For example, here are the figures reported in The Gazette on December 5 of last year. The Montreal Jazz Festival costs $9.5 million, and tobacco company sponsorships bring in $1.5 million, or about 16 per cent of all sponsorship revenues.

We all know how much the jazz festival is an integral part of Montreal's image, and we know also that fireworks attract visitors in droves. Well, fireworks cost $1.4 million, of which $1 million comes from tobacco companies. Tobacco sponsorship represents 72 per cent of costs.

The Festival Juste pour rire, and that probably includes Just for Laughs too, costs $10 million, and tobacco sponsors fork out $1 million, or 10 per cent.

The Festival d'été de Québec costs $4.5 million, and tobacco companies pour in $500,000, or 11 per cent.

Some 16 comparable analyses of 88 cultural and sport events throughout Canada estimate that economic benefits stand at $133 million and that 2,179 jobs depend on these investments. The member who spoke before me made the point, which is fundamental here, that there is no consensus on the real impact on tobacco use of the visibility of sponsors' trademarks in cultural and sport events.

In that same vein, we should keep in mind the remarks of the minister on December 6. He stated that, within three years, the number of smokers would drop 1.5 million because of this legislation, some 15 to 22 per cent. But he has been unable to explain how these estimates have been figured out. They have no basis whatsoever.

Moreover, I remember two surveys, and this is important, because the essence of democracy, as my colleagues have pointed out, is that it is the people who decide. We will therefore talk about the people.

Two surveys confirm that the majority of people do not want the proposed legislation to apply to cultural and sports events. In particular, the survey that appeared in La Presse on December 6 showed that 81 per cent of respondents felt that the measures contained in the proposed legislation would not stop young people from smoking, and 68 per cent were against the ban on sponsorship. And we have a government determined to make laws that people want nothing to do with.

Even if it does not ban sponsors, as the health minister keeps saying, there is a strong danger that the bill, through its restrictions, will effectively eliminate sponsorship by tobacco companies.

Another survey, and I will close with this, was carried out by Insight Research Canada in September 1996. It found that 66 per cent of Canadians agreed that tobacco companies should be

allowed to sponsor events and organizations in the fields of arts, sports, entertainment and fashion. Furthermore, 84 per cent of respondents felt that a company legally doing business in Canada should have the right to sponsor these events.

In addition, 83 per cent thought that the decision of whether or not to allow sponsorship should rest with the organizations sponsored and those doing the sponsoring, rather than with the government.

Clearly, people are not in favour of this bill. That is why the members of the Bloc Quebecois have returned in large numbers today to defend this position. If there is no change regarding sponsorship, we will be voting against this bill.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question. As we can see from my hon. colleague's breakdown of figures, what this budget, tabled by a minister who claims he wants to seriously look after poor children, provides for is 53 cents per week per child in Canada. We can also see that, over the past three years, instead of improving, the situation of poor children in Canada has in fact deteriorated.

When the Liberals were criticizing the Conservatives in their red book, they indicated that there were 1 million children living in poverty in Canada. There are now 1.5 million poor children in Canada, which means that their number has increased by 500,000 in the last three years. Poor children do not appear out of thin air. If their numbers are growing, it is because the overall economic situation is deteriorating, because more and more people are unemployed and on welfare.

While it is content with giving 53 cents per week to poor children and brag about it, as my hon. colleague said, the government is letting family trusts move to the U.S. depriving the government of $600 million in tax revenue. That is what this budget is all about and the kind of work that has been accomplished these past three years.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said many citizens will tune out when we speak about the budget. They will not tune out when the time comes for the election.

What did we produce in a practical way to help the government to establish a good budget? Today we are giving our opinion on this budget and our opinion is that this budget is not very good at all. But we did a lot of work for the government. I am sure in certain fields the Reform Party also did some work in presenting some analysis to the government.

We produced three reports on fiscality, a study well done. We received congratulations from the Minister of Finance for having done so. These were reports on three studies that showed clearly point by point through an analysis that if we would review the fiscality in this country we would probably be able to save right now $6 billion that could be used to put back into programs for employment.

We are not trying to opt out of the government. We are trying to help. If we want to help the government, the government has to help itself. With this budget, when we see that it has a full margin to act and it does not do anything, it is saying that it will help poor people, but it put $600 million for the poor children. That is the same amount of money that it let go with the fiducies familiales to the United States. That is only one or two companies that did that.

We are trying to help. We offered some analysis but nobody listened.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak on the budget. Yesterday afternoon, the people of Canada and Quebec were sorely disappointed with this federal budget, who purpose is to win votes. It is not only a do-nothing and meek budget, but also one that falls short of their expectations, given the considerable flexibility the government and its Minister of Finance had in preparing this budget.

Like the vast majority of people and pressure groups, the Bloc Quebecois condemns this cheap election-minded budget designed to disguise this Liberal government's lack of action while purporting to provide assistance to children, families and the unemployed in Canada and Quebec.

Like in the cartoon published in Le Devoir this morning, the Minister of Finance of Canada is bragging, with cynicism to boot, in the face of all the people who were hit by the massive cuts of the past three years. This cartoon illustrates the attitude with which the finance minister tabled this budget. Such an attitude is an insult to the 1.5 million unemployed in Canada today. It is an insult also to the tens of thousands of children who have been forced to live in poverty by this government since it took office. In fact, the number of poor children has increased by 500,000 over the past three years.

This attitude is also an insult to provincial governments, which have had to pay the price for reduced transfer payments and to live with the consequences of this government's policies for the past three years. Finally, the most insulting aspect of this attitude is that, in addition to showing off, the Minister of Finance is displaying a terrible lack of initiative in his election minded budget.

Two general conclusions can be drawn from yesterday's budget. The first one is that, since it was tabled last night, this budget has generated a unanimous reaction in Canada and in Quebec, as we saw this morning in most newspapers. There is an obvious lack of faith in the proposed measures, in light of the previous policies of this government over the last three years, since it took office.

This lack of faith affects Canadians and Quebecers, because the finance minister paints a misleading picture on the reduction of the deficit, which he says is the result of the government's cost cutting measures, but which is in fact largely due to a reduction in transfer payments to the provinces.

There is also a lack of faith when the finance minister proposes a timid reduction of employment insurance premiums, whose rate is well above the rate that the government and the minister could have set. Instead of granting a 10 cent reduction, the minister could easily have lowered the rate by 30 cents, as we will see later.

There is also a lack of faith when the finance minister announces that $800 million will be earmarked for the creation of the Canada Foundation for Innovation. That money will come from the savings made through reduced transfer payments to the provinces. In fact, it is the provinces that will pay for this investment.

Let us look at the reduction of the deficit, which the finance minister is so proud of. The minister is very cynical when he boasts about the early success of his fight against the deficit.

Yesterday, he said, and I quote: "For 1998-99, the government's deficit target is $9 billion". The minister is therefore talking about a partial deficit, without ever setting a deadline for a zero deficit in his budget, as several provinces did, including Quebec.

We all know that the finance minister refuses to give a date, at least for the time being. The minister, who is driven by fear, is probably waiting for the next election campaign, which is not too far away. He will then engage in grandstanding in setting a deadline for his zero deficit, because he will have given himself enough flexibility to set a date depending on the circumstances.

This timid attitude, to say the least, goes against the very idea of a long term budgetary plan, and illustrates the essentially demagogic nature of the budget tabled yesterday by the finance minister. However, this lack of rigour on the government's part is not the real issue. The real issue is the source of the funds used to fight the deficit, something which the minister is so proud of.

It was precisely this that the Minister of Finance touched on yesterday when he said, and I quote: "The fact is that by 1998-99, government spending on everything but the debt will have been reduced from $120 billion in 1993-94 to $103.5 billion".

Once again, we must put these statements by the minister in context. Yes, spending has been reduced, but how? Now we know that it has been almost entirely by offloading the deficit onto the backs of the provinces. This reduced federal spending is largely an illusion.

Let us return to a major sticking point in yesterday's budget: the reduced EI premiums. As we have said repeatedly, these premiums are well beyond the objectives that could have been reached in order to demonstrate leadership in this area, and that could have been an effective job creation measure.

Let us also return to the creation of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. Once again, this is a measure that owes its existence to money taken from savings generated through decreases in provincial transfer payments.

A second thing we notice in examining this budget is the sly interference of the federal government in matters of provincial jurisdiction. An examination of measures over the last three years reveals three areas where the government has shown a lack of good faith.

First, the piecemeal approach when it comes to the promises regarding benefits for children living in poverty: $70 million seems completely ridiculous, if you consider the role of this government in contributing to child poverty, which has done nothing but get worse since this government came to power.

I would like to quote a brief passage from the Liberals' red book, which reads as follows, on page 15:

Today, after nine years of Conservative government, Canadians are facing hardship: 1.6 million unemployed, millions more on welfare, a million children living below the poverty line, record numbers of bankruptcies and bank closings.

Here is another quote taken from real life, straight from Statistics Canada: "After three years under the Liberals, the country is still in a sorry state: 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed, nearly 3 million are on welfare, 1.5 million children live in poverty, 500,000 more than three years ago, and the number of bankruptcies, 86,253 between January and November 1996, has also reached record levels". We understand perfectly why before he resigned from the Liberal Party, our colleague from York South-Weston said: "We accused Conservatives of every possible evil, and I am resigning because we are doing exactly the same thing they did". People had certain expectations with respect to child poverty.

How can we believe this government if we consider it failed to inject $720 million in child care, a promise that was not kept, like the GST?

Second, more band-aid solutions, when we consider promises in other areas that are strictly matters of provincial jurisdiction. This is an amazing attitude on the part of the Minister of Finance. He savagely cuts transfer payments to the provinces, which undermines provincial objectives to fight poverty and unemployment, and meanwhile he is interfering in provincial jurisdictions with his pre-electoral gestures. We know perfectly well the government cut $4.5 billion in transfer payments to the provinces which are used for social programs. It also took $5 billion out of the unemployment insurance fund, which in the end comes out of the pockets of Canadians.

What is going on? The problem is that the unemployed are receiving fewer benefits that are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain and are getting them for a shorter period of time. Thousands of people will never have unemployment insurance, even if they did work. So today, they tend to end up on welfare much faster. Transfers to the provinces for social assistance have been cut.

When the government says it is doing something about poverty, it is just putting a band-aid on a problem the government itself created and which has not changed from what it was three years ago, when the Conservatives were loudly condemned by this government.

Finally, as you saw earlier during question period, no commitment was made or will be made in this budget to compensate Quebec for the cost of harmonizing the GST, a demand that has been voiced repeatedly for a number of weeks, especially by the Quebec Minister of Finance.

We know the government has just transferred $1 billion to the maritimes, and as my colleague from Longueuil explained earlier, when you transfer $1 billion from the federal government to the governments of the maritimes, this is $250 million which comes out of the pockets of Quebecers, since Quebecers provide Ottawa with one quarter of its revenue. So they took $250 million out of the pockets of Quebecers to send it to the maritimes, because they were harmonizing their provincial sales taxes with the GST. Quebec has claimed compensation for nearly $2 billion and will not get a penny. That is the story of the GST.

This budget is an electoral budget but it is also a lousy budget. The minister of finance did a lousy job on this budget. The minister had every opportunity to do something. He had a margin in which to manoeuvre; in fact $8 billion under the targeted deficit if we include in the $5 billion the $3 billion that was set aside for bad eventualities.

The Bloc Quebecois produced three reports recently, trying to show the government through an analysis of the fiscality that it would be perfectly possible through the fiscality, through the underground economy and by implementing some measures suggested by the auditor general to get $6 billion more.

It is possible to get a $14 billion margin. It is a real possibility. With this margin we should have expected the minister to do something. It would have been quite possible to still target zero deficit for the year 2000 but at the same time to give back to the provinces the $4.5 billion taken for social programs and to put back into the unemployment insurance fund the $5 billions taken from there to give more protection to the unemployed and maybe to use a 30 cent reduction on fees instead of 10 cents. But that is not what the minister has done.

Of course, this budget is an electoral budget, we all know it. We are going into an election, as everybody seems to understand. The election will be a very strange one in comparison with the one of 1993. In 1993, 54 members of the Bloc were elected from Quebec and, to the surprise of all Canadians and to our own surprise, we became the official opposition here.

This time there will not be any surprise. We will very easily elect 55 members of the Bloc back into the House of Commons. It is now possible for Canadians to replace the Bloc as the opposition, if they so wish, if they think we did not do a good job as opposition, by electing an opposition from another party. If they do not, we have to admit that we will be elected as the official opposition not only by Quebecers but by all Canadians.

In conclusion, this budget needs to be seen as what it is: a vote-seeking budget, a do-nothing budget which does not come up to expectations, and for what it is absolutely not: a tax-reforming budget.

We know, Canadians and Quebecers know, that the rich in this country do not pay as much tax as they should. The minister has been urged repeatedly to really reform the Canadian tax system, but there is nothing in this regard in the budget.

To give a precise example, the family trusts, we know that they all beat it for the U.S. not so long ago, and got out of paying an amount estimated at between $500 and $600 million in taxes. Six hundred million dollars is exactly what will be given to poor children over the next two, three or four years. Two companies belonging to the same group left without paying taxes, and the government did not react.

Nor are there any job creation measures. Jobs, jobs, jobs, if anyone can find any, let them tell us where. There will be no hope for Canadians or Quebecers with this budget as far as job creation is concerned. All that the minister and the Prime Minister say is that it is up to the market to create jobs, and we must set up the necessary conditions for jobs to be created.

We need look no further than the banks, which have made record profits in the past two years, but are now responsible for record layoffs as well. Before telling us that private companies create jobs, maybe a thorough analysis ought to be done.

There is nothing about the GST and Quebec. Where is the fairness here? There is a double standard; the maritimes get money, Quebec does not. And they will go on cutting benefits to the unemployed and cutting social programs, while the minister is madly patting himself on the back, claiming he has managed to fight the deficit with his budget.

We are heading toward an election, and the Liberals will be judged accordingly.

[English]

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have a minister of finance in Quebec too. And he says harmonization with the GST would have cost Quebec $2 billion had the corporate tax burden not been increased accordingly to compensate. In Ottawa, on the other hand, the Minister of Finance says that is not so, that in fact Quebec made money in the process.

If the Minister of Finance thinks Quebec minister Landry is lying to the public, would he rise and say so?

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday, the Minister of Finance told us in his budget that the deficit for the current fiscal year was $5.3 billion less than his target last year, on the same date, in his previous budget. With this manoeuvring room, the minister could, among other things-because there are a lot of things to do-pay Quebec the $2 billion it cost to harmonize its sales tax with the GST.

Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that the McKenna formula, concocted in secret after the Government of Quebec made its requests known, serves simply to justify more unfair treatment of Quebec by the federal government?

[Canada Pension Plan, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, speaking on behalf of my colleagues and the Bloc Quebecois, to respond today to the draft legislation to amend the Canada pension plan that was just introduced by the minister.

On the whole,, we welcome this announcement although, as usual, there are some aspects that give us cause for concern. We are very much aware, as the chief actuary of the plan has said, that the problems facing the CPP are fundamental and that without changes, the CPP fund will run out of money in less than 20 years. Without changes, contribution rates would have to increase from 6 per cent to 14 per cent.

I would like to go over briefly most of the measures contained in this draft legislation and comment accordingly.

One of the measures being proposed, the first one, is that anyone currently receiving survivor, disability or combined benefits and anyone over the age of 65 as of December 31 is not affected by the proposed changes. This is, of course, a pre-election measure, and we realize the minister does not want to give anyone the impression they will be affected immediately. However, those in the plan later on will be affected.

The second measure is that all benefits under the CPP will remain fully indexed to inflation. This is very good news. In this respect, the federal government is following Quebec's example. In fact, Quebec agrees with the federal government on this score. Only two provinces do not.

Every time Quebec has managed to defend its interests satisfactorily-we saw this in the harmonization of the GST, and we see it again today in this draft legislation-Quebec has always been among the first to agree with measures that support the interests of our citizens.

Measure number three is that the ages of retirement-normal, early or late-remain unchanged. There is no problem here, of course. The fund now is equivalent in value to about two years of benefits. With fuller funding, it will grow to about five years of benefits, and we agree with the minister that this will guarantee the system's viability.

Contribution rates will rise over the next six years to 9.9 per cent in 2003 and remain steady thereafter. This is another measure which, we believe, guarantees the system's viability in the long term. The basic exemption, the first $3,500 of earnings on which no CPP contributions are paid, will remain at the current level. There is no problem here either.

Retirement pensions will be calculated on the five-year average of the year's maximum pensionable earnings instead of the three-year average. Some criticism here. This represents a small loss for beneficiaries, since the five-year average will usually be slightly less than the three-year average.

Another measure is the improvement of the administration of disability benefits. In a recent report, the auditor general was critical of the way these benefits were administered and pointed to Quebec as an example of what should be done. Quebec was right again. We applaud the decision of the Minister of Finance to do things the right way. However, we will have to wait and see how this works out in the bill.

Another measure is that disability benefits will be indexed by prices instead of wages. Here again, we have a complaint. This penalizes beneficiaries to some extent, because prices tend not to change as quickly as wages.

New rules will be used to calculate combined pensions for people receiving both disability and survivor benefits or retirement and survivor benefits. This is very bad news.

Let us take the example of a woman receiving benefits after the death of her husband and who then becomes disabled. She is therefore entitled to disability benefits. Under the current plan, she receives both benefits. Under the new rules, there will be a limit on the amount she can receive. In real terms, it could mean she would receive $800 a month instead of $1,200. It seems unfair to penalize people who are in such unfortunate situations this way.

Death benefits will be equivalent to six months of pension or $2,500, whichever is less. At first glance, that does not seem to pose a problem.

More active participation will also be required. Eligibility for disability benefits will require a person to have contributed during four of the six years preceding an application for benefits. Another downer. We will have to see what the witnesses before the Standing Committee on Finance have to say about the consequences of this measure. At first glance, it looks like a good number of contributors will be dropped from the plan and will thus have paid for naught.

Canadians will also be receiving an annual statement from the Canada Pension Plan. This of course is a good idea. Canadians and Quebecers should always be given a statement of what happens in their files.

A federal-provincial examination will be conducted every three years instead of every five. We also agree with this measure.

As the minister pointed out, there are three pillars to the Canadian retirement income system: the Canada Pension Plan, the Old Age Security together with the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and the tax incentives for retirement savings, namely RRSPs.

Where the rub lies is with the second pillar. The Bloc Quebecois will vigorously oppose the proposal to replace these two benefits with a single benefit for seniors in 2001.

The finance minister's proposal discourages saving by penalizing Quebecers and Canadians who have put money away for their old age, because the benefit will be reduced by an amount proportionate to their retirement income.

The Bloc Quebecois promised to battle the federal government on this every inch of the way, provided of course that Quebec is still part of Canada in 2002.

The Bloc Quebecois' position on the third pillar, RRSPs, is outlined in the analysis of personal tax expenditures released by the Bloc in early February. We think it is not fair to Quebecers and Canadians for a $1,000 investment in an RRSP to generate $313 in

federal tax savings for those who earn more than $100,000, while the same $1,000 investment in an RRSP will only generate a $175 tax saving for someone earning $30,000 or less.

As an alternative to the RRSP tax deduction, we have proposed a $268 across-the-board tax credit; this is the only fair and equitable way to encourage all taxpayers to save for their retirement.

This pretty well sums up for now our reaction to the tabling of this draft bill. Naturally, we will follow it as it goes through all the different stages and will gladly offer comments along the way.

[Somalia Inquiry, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the exact same thing was said about General Boyle. History is repeating itself.

Since, when he appointed Vice-Admiral Murray as Chief of Defence Staff, the minister knew about his involvement in the events in Somalia and since he made sure the inquiry will not be able to determine whether or not there was a cover-up, how can Quebecers and Canadians be sure of the vice-admiral's integrity?

[Somalia Inquiry, February 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Defence.

The former director of the military police testified before the Somalia inquiry that, on three separate occasions, the current Chief of Defence Staff, who was the third top ranking officer of the armed forces at the time of the events in Somalia, refused to have the military police investigate the suspicious death of a Somali, on March 4, 1993, in attempt to cover up the circumstances.

In light of the troubling and contradictory testimony of the Chief of Defence Staff and the former director of military police, could the minister tell us if he continues to support the current Chief of Defence Staff in spite of the fact that he was at the heart of the Somalia scandal?