Ottawa’s Bubble Problem: Why Political Staffers Should Step Outside Before Running for Office

Ottawa’s Bubble Problem: Why Political Staffers Should Step Outside Before Running for Office by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada does not lack political talent. What it increasingly lacks is political leaders who have lived meaningful working lives outside politics before asking voters for power. Over the past two decades, Ottawa has quietly normalized a narrow career pipeline: university, partisan internship, political staffer, senior adviser, nomination contest, elected office. Many MPs now arrive in Parliament fluent in messaging, strategy, and procedure—but unfamiliar with payrolls, private-sector risk, frontline public services, or life outside the political bubble. This is not renewal. It is monoculture. If Canadians want better policy and greater public trust, political parties should adopt a clear expectation: no one should run for elected office without substantial work experience outside politics. Not as a symbolic suggestion, but as a serious norm shaping nominations and political culture. A Closed Political Ecosystem Ottawa has become an echo chamber. Political staffers work long hours, but within a narrow universe dominated by polling, communications strategy, stakeholder optics, and partisan warfare. Over time, reality is filtered through briefing notes rather than lived experience. This helps explain why governments increasingly confuse announcements with outcomes. Billions are “invested,” strategies unveiled, targets proclaimed—yet housing remains unaffordable, infrastructure projects run late and over budget, and health-care access deteriorates. Politics becomes performative, while results lag. When people who have never left the bubble write the rules, they often mistake motion for progress. They know how to manage process, but not consequences. Why Outside Work Experience Changes Judgment There is a fundamental difference between studying how the economy works and participating in it. Someone who has run a small business understands regulatory burden in their bones. Someone who has managed people knows that labour shortages are not solved by press releases. A nurse, teacher, engineer or tradesperson understands burnout, staffing gaps, and operational reality in ways no departmental memo can capture. These experiences create judgment. They teach trade-offs, limits, and humility. They discourage ideological rigidity and bureaucratic fantasy. Canada’s political class increasingly lacks this grounding. Too many MPs arrive skilled in social media but inexperienced in balance sheets. Too many cabinet ministers have negotiated caucus politics but never negotiated a commercial contract. Too many critics of “corporate greed” have never tried to keep an enterprise alive through inflation, interest-rate shocks, and supply-chain disruptions. This gap shows up in policy failure after policy failure—across party lines. Policy Made by People Who Don’t Bear Its Costs Consider housing. Ottawa produces endless plans, funding envelopes, and targets, yet affordability worsens. Why? Because policymakers underestimate timelines, misunderstand incentives, and overestimate state capacity. Few have ever tried to build anything—literally or figuratively. Consider infrastructure. Anyone who has managed projects outside government knows that missed deadlines and cost overruns carry consequences. In Ottawa, they generate reviews and task forces. Consider health care. Decisions about staffing models, compensation structures, and reform are routinely made by people who have never worked a night shift, covered for a sick colleague, or faced a waiting room full of frustrated patients. These failures are not abstract. They shape daily life for millions of Canadians. And they are exacerbated by a political class trained in politics before life. A Crisis of Representation There is also a deeper democratic cost. Voters increasingly distrust politicians not only because they disagree with them, but because they do not recognize them. When candidates have spent their entire adult lives in politics, empathy sounds rehearsed. Outrage feels performative. Solutions feel disconnected. Canada once sent farmers, factory workers, engineers, nurses, entrepreneurs, and veterans to Parliament in large numbers. Today, staffers and lawyers dominate. Both groups have value—but neither should dominate to this extent. Politics should not be a profession you enter before you have lived under the rules you intend to write. Answering the Objections Defenders of the status quo argue that political staffers gain deep insight into how government works. That is true—but incomplete. Knowing how to move a file through a department is not the same as knowing whether the file makes sense in the real world. Others worry that valuing outside experience could disadvantage young or marginalized candidates. In reality, the current system already favours those who can afford low-paid internships and precarious Hill jobs in expensive cities. Valuing experience gained in trades, community work, small business, or frontline services could broaden—rather than narrow—the pool. This is not about age. It is about perspective. How Parties Can Act—Now This reform does not require new laws. Political parties control nominations. They could: · Discourage staffers from running without a minimum period in non-political employment; · Explicitly value outside work experience in nomination criteria; · Introduce cooling-off periods between senior staff roles and candidacy; and · Require transparent disclosure of candidates’ work histories so voters can judge for themselves. None of this bans anyone from running. It simply changes incentives—and expectations. A Healthier Politics Political staffers are not the problem. They work hard and are essential to democracy. However, working in politics is not the same as living outside it. Canada would be better governed if fewer politicians learned politics first and life second. Until then, Ottawa will remain trapped by its most dangerous illusion: that understanding government is the same as understanding the country. Before we trust people to run Canada, we should insist they first live in it—beyond the bubble. Hope somebody will listen.