Ontario PCs took a pass on Meredith’s candidacy bid
Disgraced senator accused of affair with teenager ‘didn’t pass muster’ when quizzed by party in 2005
Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives rejected Don Meredith as a byelection candidate five years before Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed him to the Senate, the Star has learned.
Meredith, 50, was exiled from Harper’s Conservative caucus on Wednesday night after the Star reported allegations he had a sexual relationship with a teenage girl.
The married Pentecostal minister had run as a federal Conservative in a March 2008 byelection in Toronto Centre, finishing a distant fourth in a contest won by Liberal Bob Rae. Two years later, he was appointed as a senator by Harper.
But in 2005, the provincial Tories didn’t even want him as a candidate.
Sources say then PC leader John Tory, now the Toronto mayor, had considered Meredith as a potential flag-bearer in a byelection in Scarborough–Rouge River.
The would-be candidate completed the PC Party’s exhaustive 15-page questionnaire and his responses to queries about his personal and professional life were found to be acceptable.
However, after two face-to-face meetings with Tory’s aides, Meredith was passed over for Cynthia Lai, who finished second behind Liberal Bas Balkissoon on Nov. 24, 2005.
“We talked to him, we met with him, and we rejected him,” said a provincial Conservative insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to be seen questioning Harper’s judgment.
“We felt this guy was not worth it. He was going to be hard to manage. So when Harper put him in the Senate, we were stunned.” CONSERVATIVE INSIDER ON SEN. DON MEREDITH, ABOVE
“He just didn’t pass muster. We felt this guy was not worth it. He was going to be hard to manage,” said the PC source.
“So when Harper put him in the Senate, we were stunned.” Harper named Meredith, who could not be reached for comment, to the Red Chamber on Dec. 18, 2010 along with former CFL commissioner and Montreal Alouettes fullback Larry Smith.
Those two key appointments finally gave Harper a majority with 54 senators in the 105-seat patronage body.
The particulars of the Senate appointment process vary from prime minister’s office to prime minister’s office, according to former PMO staffers. There are common themes that emerge, however.
In appointing senators, security checks are a matter of course, to turn up any previous arrests or convictions.
One former Liberal staffer said these are often zero-tolerance issues — offences like impaired driving or domestic assault would immediately preclude a name from the shortlist that makes it to the prime minister’s desk.
If the candidate had ties to the political party making the appointment, their names often come as recommendations from regional ministers or party organizers, who would have some knowledge of their background.
Debates among politicians about the best candidate are inevitable, but staff work to dig up any skeletons in the closet.
If the candidate is not politically active, discreet inquiries to connections in their communities could allay any concerns.
Another source, who worked in a previous prime minister’s office, said the vetting process should involve deeply personal questions ranging from consumption of alcohol and drugs to extra-marital affairs.
The PMO’s director of appointments would have many questions, but sometimes additional queries would come from the prime min- ister’s spin doctors.
“There’s a great deal of research that was done to make sure they were quality appointments,” said the source, who didn’t work in Harper’s PMO.
After the vetting process, a list of names and resumes are passed on to the prime minister, typically with a number of choices.
Appointing senators has one advantage over other political appointments: the vacancies are mostly predictable, since senators are required to retire at 75.
“The prime minister has to answer for his own decisions,” said Liberal Sen. Serge Joyal.
A former minister appointed to the Senate by prime minister Jean Chrétien in 1997, Joyal remembered a thorough vetting.
“You meet with the person who is responsible in the prime minister’s office and they ask you the constitutional question: where is your residence? Where do you live? That is the first question. Do you have anything pending with court system? Do you have any civil action against you that could reflect negatively on you? Do you have in your past . . . some things that you have done that you think could come to the surface of things and be seen negatively and reflect upon your credibility?” he said.
“The prime minister will of course rely on the report he receives. If he has further information to ask, he may ask it directly to the person.”