Another Trump lesson: there’s a direct line between the false promises of politicians in the post-Cold War era and the recent election of so many false prophets. Donald Trump is only a more vulgar false promiser than those earlier disrespectful leaders who have helped elevate him.

The Liberals’ electoral reform fiasco is a sad Canadian example of making promises you should know that you can’t keep. Anyone who had paid any attention to the molasses pace of constitutional change in Canada cannot have really believed they would deliver massive electoral reform in the life of one Parliament.

The incompetence of their management of this promise has debased the entire cause of reform. The multi-million-dollar push poll and postcard campaign they launched last week is just the latest tomfoolery.

Pierre Trudeau began his reform battle with the failed Victoria Charter in 1971. It took another 11 years to win the Charter of Rights. Changing how we choose our governments is no less consequential than changing the way they share their powers. As the Charlottetown Accord amply demonstrated, a referendum is no answer unless you have built a consensus supporting the proposed changes. A parliamentary committee is, perhaps, a first preliminary step. Expect that they will be the authors of a final package of a reform agenda? Don’t be silly.

Canada does need a reformed system of choosing governments. We are one of the few federal states still using a system invented by the English aristocracy to ensure their continuing control of Parliament. But the choice of which reform is neither obvious nor easy. None of the many options can be simply exported from one political culture to another without careful bullet-proofing about unintended consequences, and probably some tweaking.

Otherwise you risk ending up on the constitutional roller-coaster that has so destabilized Italy for decades now. They have suffered changing voting systems almost as frequently as their enthusiasm to dump governments. Last week’s debacle, an effort to make even more sweeping changes, illustrates the consequences of “rushing the constitutional fences.” It may also have set up Europe’s next Brexit.

So now, on our reform efforts, we should probably call “Time!” Stop the insults flying across the aisle in the Commons. Take a breath and develop a less risky path forward.

First, the prime minister needs to admit that his promise that 2015 would be the last election we would hold under our existing creaky system was imprudent. Others could be forgiven for using stronger characterizations. To preserve any credibility on reform, however, he cannot simply now give up.

As frustrating as it will be for the patient advocates of reform, any successful outcome must mean moving more slowly and carefully. A rushed set of parliamentary committee hearings is not a substitute for a professionally led national inquiry. Whenever we have successfully made big policy changes in our diverse and often disputatious democracy it has been preceded by an inquiry or a Royal Commission. That’s how we got bilingualism, free trade and our last big electoral reform, the first election expenses act.

The official status and structure matter less than the mandate, resources and deadline. A serious inquiry named next spring, might make an interim report before the end of this parliament, then less than 30 months away. A final report might only be received by a new parliament. Its work should include expert modelling of a variety of systems on specific ridings, cities and groups of voters. It will need to study the impact of changes in other advanced democracies, like New Zealand and the U.K. It should involve an intensive consultation, education, and discussion with Canadians.

The commissioners should be empowered to propose first steps for 2019. Changes like tests of multi member ridings, preferential and online voting, and other real-world election pilot projects. Confidence-building may require proofs that Canadians can watch unfold. The reform process may involve sunset clauses to permit tweaking. It is unlikely to be delivered all at once.

The brilliant report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was also the product of a false start and reset, followed by years of study, and consultation with tens of thousands of Canadians. Why would dramatically altering – for the first time in 150 years – how we choose who governs be less challenging?

The political risks for Justin Trudeau in being seen as either duplicitous or simply dumb, in his promise to instantly change how we vote, are now getting higher. It will be a thread in the campaign narrative against him in the 2019 election.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The damage that dropping the reform ball completely will do to the confidence of Canadians in their politicians, and the promises they should know they can’t keep, will be much higher.

Robin V. Sears, a principal at Earnscliffe Strategy Group and a Broadbent Institute leadership fellow, was an NDP strategist for 20 years.

Read more about: