Canada Is Governing a Technical Nation Without Engineers

Canada Is Governing a Technical Nation Without Engineers by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada is making some of the most complex policy decisions in its modern history—on energy, defence, infrastructure, and technology—yet the people making those decisions in the House of Commons of Canada largely lack one critical form of expertise: engineering. Today, out of 340 Members of Parliament, only four can be clearly identified as licensed professional engineers (P.Eng.). All sit on the government benches. None are in the opposition. That is not just an imbalance—it is a structural weakness in how Canada governs itself. This is not a partisan issue. It is a national one. We are a country built on infrastructure, natural resources, and complex systems. From pipelines to power grids, from Arctic sovereignty to defence procurement, Canada’s strategic challenges are not abstract—they are technical. They require not only political judgment but a disciplined understanding of feasibility, risk, systems integration, and long-term consequences. Engineers are trained precisely for this. They are taught to solve problems within constraints. They learn to balance cost, performance, safety, and time. They are bound by a professional obligation to place public safety and welfare above all else. In short, they are trained to think in ways that public policy increasingly demands. And yet, they are almost entirely absent from Parliament. This is not new. During the government of Stephen Harper—a period defined by major debates over energy infrastructure, military procurement, and Arctic policy—there was effectively only one clearly identifiable licensed engineer in the House. A decade later, despite even greater complexity in national decision-making, the situation has barely improved. The consequences are visible. Canada’s defence procurement system has become synonymous with delay and cost escalation. Major infrastructure projects routinely face overruns and shifting timelines. Energy debates are often driven more by rhetoric than by technical clarity. These are not merely political failures—they are failures of systems thinking. Engineering does not replace politics, but it grounds it. An engineer in Parliament will ask different questions: Is this technically feasible? What are the system dependencies? Where are the failure points? What are the lifecycle costs? These questions do not end debate—but they elevate it. So why are there so few engineers in federal politics? Part of the answer lies within the profession itself. Engineers tend to work in environments where outcomes are measurable and decisions are evidence-based. Politics, by contrast, often operates in ambiguity and rewards persuasion over precision. Many engineers simply choose to stay where their skills are more directly applied. But part of the responsibility lies with political parties. Candidate recruitment has long favoured familiar profiles—lawyers, political staffers, business figures. Engineers are not systematically sought out, nor is their value fully appreciated in the legislative process. This is a mistake. Canada is entering a period defined by technological transformation and geopolitical uncertainty. We are navigating an energy transition while remaining a major energy producer. We are modernizing our defence capabilities in an increasingly unstable world. We are confronting infrastructure deficits in housing, transportation, and public services. These are engineering challenges as much as political ones. We do not need a Parliament of engineers. But we do need a Parliament that includes them. A more balanced House of Commons—one that brings together legal, economic, social, and technical expertise—would be better equipped to govern a country like Canada. It would make decisions that are not only politically viable, but technically sound. Professional engineers are bound by a code of ethics that prioritizes public safety, sustainability, and accountability. At a time when public trust in institutions is under strain, those are not qualities we can afford to overlook. The numbers speak for themselves. Fewer than a handful of licensed engineers sit in a Parliament of 340 members. In a country that depends on infrastructure, innovation, and resource development, that is not just surprising—it is deeply concerning. Canada does not lack engineering talent. It lacks a pathway to bring that talent into public life. If we are serious about building a resilient, secure, and competitive nation, we need to broaden who sits at the decision-making table. That means encouraging engineers—and other technical professionals—to step forward. It means political parties recognizing the value of technical expertise. And it means voters understanding that good policy is not only about values and vision, but seriously dependent on timely execution. In the end, governing a modern country is not unlike designing a complex system. It requires clarity, discipline, and respect for reality. Canada would be far better served if more of its legislators understood that firsthand.