Regardless of the outcome of the US presidential race, there are lessons from the campaign that Canadians should consider. The most obvious is that any success enjoyed by Donald Trump was less about his popularity and more about voter's dissatisfaction with “The System.” Trump personified resentment among many voters toward society's elites: That cadre of professional politicians, advisors, business leaders, experts, lobbyists, mainstream academics and various hangers-on who seem to run the world. Although members of the elite seem to be doing well personally, those at the bottom of the rung never seem to be able to get ahead while the entire political system seems mired in gridlock. Although a US phenomenon, we shouldn't fool ourselves. Many Canadians are also frustrated. Part of Justin Trudeau's appeal was the belief that he was going to shake things up in Ottawa, challenge conventional thinking, and bring about dramatic change. Indeed, I would argue that some of the present restlessness toward the Trudeau Liberals is precisely because they seem to be captured by what many observers call the “Ottawa consensus”: a consensus that allows major oil and gas projects to proceed; fudges the acceptance of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and gets cold feet on electoral reform. So how does Canada avoid what some have called “the dangers of elite groupthink?” How do we prevent our politicians from following the overly cautious, status-quo-enhancing advice offered by the bureaucracy, business community, lobbyists and others who create the Ottawa consensus? How can we get our political leaders to meet this yearning for significant change? First, we have to acknowledge that it's not always possible. Government is about maintaining order. The Hippocratic oath's maxim “do no harm” has equal application to governing.  One of the great disappointments of taking office is learning that so many of your ambitious plans are unworkable, usually because of their unintended consequences. This is not necessarily a bad thing.  Reckless policies can do much harm.  But it seems the longer you are in office the more cautious you become — constantly told by the elites that there is really only one way of doing things and the general population simply doesn't understand the complexities of governing.  The fact that the advice offered by elites always seems to help maintain their power and influence or, in the case of business, profit margins, is never mentioned. Another part of the problem is that we have created a system of government that rewards those who do exactly what we don't want them to do. Think about it.  We want politicians to be creative and dynamic in their thinking, yet we chastise them for ignoring so-called “experts".  We want them to be less partisan and more collaborative. Yet when was the last time you voted for an opposition party because it worked well with the government? We want them to make the “right” decision, no matter how unpopular, and then throw them out at election time because they raised a tax or imposed a regulation.  We want politicians who get tough with business elites, but panic when corporations threaten to leave or curb their operations. Changing these aspects of governing will not be easy.  But if we are really interested in addressing voter frustration, altering the structure and nature of our system has to be the focus of our efforts. Although I make no claims of possessing a grand theory about how to proceed, let me make a few tentative suggestions that might kick-start the discussion. First, let's think more about how we make citizen engagement a central part of our policy process — not public consultation by government at the 11th hour after decisions have been made. I mean government adopting meaningful approaches that allow citizens to help shape the government's response to a problem from Day One. This is not as difficult as it appears and governments across the country have already taken tentative steps in this direction. Second, maybe we need to consider how to limit the time politicians stay in office. Yes, experience is a great asset in public life.  At the same time, how do we give politicians freedom to make tough decisions without worrying about keeping their jobs? And finally, maybe we need to make business and financial regulation a top agenda item in our international discussions. For far too long, corporate interests have played one jurisdiction off against another when it comes to subsidies, taxes and regulation. Working individually, countries seem powerless. United, they could certainly do more to fix a system that appears rigged. I do not believe that we are in imminent danger of producing a Canadian Donald Trump. But unless we start changing those aspects of our political system that prevent governments from delivering more to the Canadian people, I fear that we could see a groundswell of anger like the one we have been witnessing south of the border.   John Milloy is a former MPP and Ontario Liberal cabinet minister currently serving as the co-director of the Centre for Public Ethics and assistant professor of public ethics at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, and the inaugural practitioner in residence in Wilfrid Laurier University's Political Science department. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo's Master of Public Service Program.  John can be reached at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter @John_Milloy.