How Patrick Brown's downfall reveals the challenges of vetting candidates

The allegations of sexual misconduct against former Ontario Conservative leader Patrick Brown raise questionsabout the vetting process for political candidates and whether enough scrutiny is being applied tothose seeking office.

But some political strategists say parties, with limited resources, can only do so much investigating, and that it often comes down to trust.

"Vetting ultimately relies a lot on honesty," said Kathleen Monk,an NDPcampaign strategist and principal atEarnscliffe Strategy Group."Ultimately,it's up to the candidate themselves to kind of betruthful with the party to ensure that there's no reputationalharmthat will come to the party as a result of things they've done in the past."

Conservative strategist Tim Powers agreed, saying the system is only as good as the people who properly participate in it.

• Brown denies sexual misconduct allegations
• Sport Minister Kent Hehr resigns from cabinet
• Nova Scotia PC Leader Jamie Baillie forced out

"I don't think you can move to a place of police-like investigations of candidates," he said.

Facing reporters on Thursday, theOntario Progressive Conservative Party's two deputy leaders were asked about the vetting ofBrown, who resigned after a hastily called news conference Wednesday night in which he denied allegations of sexual misconduct dating back years.Co-deputySteve Clark had little information to provide, saying only thatevery candidate goes through a "vetting process."

Brown's resignation as party leader comes as two other high-profile politicians were forced to step down from their posts over harassment allegations:Federal Sport and Disabilities MinisterKentHehrandNova Scotia Progressive Conservative Party Leader Jamie Baillie.

And in the U.S., many have questioned the vetting process ofRepublicanSenatecandidate Roy Moore of Alabama, whose campaignwas rockedby accusationsof sexual misconduct with minors.

Yetwhen it comes to vetting candidates for a history of alleged of sexual misconduct, those can be very difficult to uncover, especially when no official complaint has ever beenfiled.

Questionnaires

As well, in the past, questions about alleged sexual misconduct may not have even been part of the vetting process.

"Icannot recall a single instance of everhavingasked, 'Is there anything about your conduct thatwould constitute sexual impropriety,'" said Charles Bird, a principal at Earnscliffe Strategy Group and theformer Ontario director of the federal Liberal campaign from 2005 to 2006.

"I wouldprobablybe inclined to ask it now if I were to vet these days, because, quite rightly, the rules have changed."

Instead, candidates havegenerally been asked to fill out elaborate questionnaires, often administered by each party's "greenlight committees," whichare responsible for determining whether a given candidate should be allowed to stand for nomination.

• Sexual advances 'awkward,' accuser tells CBC News
• Allegations won't deter PC goals, co-deputy leader says

Those questionnaires mayinclude questions about a candidate'spersonal and political history,personal finances, latest tax assessments and any criminal record. Some parties may nowask for access to a candidate's social media accounts as controversial posts have led to the downfall of some office seekers.

'No template'

"There's no template for how to do this," said ChadRogers,a Conservative politicalstrategist and partner at CrestviewStrategy."I've seen varying degrees of intensity."

But an important part of the vetting process, said Bird, isthe question-and-answer sessions.

"Part of the vetting process is askingthe right question and getting at the attitudes of the person whom you are interviewing," he said. "That's usually our firstindicationas towhetheraprospectivecandidateiscentristand balanced in hisor her views."

However, Birdsaid, there comes a point in the process the "come clean now moment" when hetells a candidate:

"'This is when you have to give me everything that you think could be a concern down the line, because as sure as God made green little apples, somebody is going to come up with something that will embarrass you ifyou don't come clean with it now.

"And some folks simply won't realize that stuff that could be really really detrimental to their chances going forward is actually relevant."

'Can't police stupid'

That, according to Rogers, is why in his 20 years of experience in crisis communications, the scandals that bring down political candidates are those that involve actionsthat they are never willing to disclose either because ofshame or sheerlackof self awareness.

"You can't police stupid," he said. "It's not that there's aninadequate vetting. It's that when people behave badly, shame enters the world as a secret or a lie."

As for vetting party leaders, Powers said they don't go through the same process as a candidate.

"When a leader is running, when someone is seeking the leadership of the party, the race itself is effectively the vetting process," he said.

With someone like Brown, who had been an MP for nearly a decade,people wouldn't have necessarily thought twice, Power said.

"So somebody may have a long service record at aparticular level of politics and people will assume all is good."

Still, most leadership candidates will also have that "very frank conversation" in which they are asked by their campaign team if they should be aware of something, in their past, that could be raised as an issue.

"I have no way of knowing if it happened with Patrick during the leadership race or with his campaign team," Powers said.