Kim Samuel is research fellow at the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative at Oxford University, founder of the Belonging Forum, and the author of On Belonging: Finding Connection in an Age of Isolation.
In a recent interview, Geoffrey Hinton, the University of Toronto computer scientist often called “the godfather of artificial intelligence,” warned that AI will gain “the capabilities to replace many, many jobs.” Last year, Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, said AI “could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs and spike unemployment to 10 to 20 per cent in the next one to five years.” This fall, a clear majority of Canadian workers surveyed said they believe such an outcome to be at least somewhat likely.
Even if some uncertainty remains about AI’s job-market impacts, Canadian policymakers should treat this challenge as what it is: the single most serious risk to people’s livelihoods in memory.
So what should government leaders do? While some emphasize investing in skilled trades and the physical economy, others press for more radical solutions, like a universal basic income. But there’s one potentially powerful policy response hiding in plain sight: the idea of a Canadian national service.
Andrew Coyne: The AI job apocalypse is coming. Or is it?
Those words can evoke strong feelings. While we thankfully have a deep tradition of volunteering – close to three in four people volunteered formally or informally, according to a recent Statistics Canada analysis – we also have a long-standing aversion to compulsory service, shaped by the bitter history of military conscription. This is understandable. Canada is a pluralist country. We are wary of coercion. And our best civic instincts often show up locally rather than through big federal directives.
But the rise of AI changes that math. If technology erodes the entry-level job ladder – the place where young people learn workplace norms, build confidence and acquire basic skills – then we face not just an income problem, but a civic and social cohesion problem. More people, especially young people, will have fewer ways to enter adulthood with dignity.
This isn’t just about keeping Canadians busy. Our country has no shortage of urgent, labour-intensive work that advances real national interests. Ecological restoration, wildfire prevention and flood mitigation, energy-efficiency retrofits, support roles in long-term care and community health, tutoring and literacy programs, rebuilding neglected public spaces, helping municipalities modernize permitting, digitizing records, and delivering services, addressing a crisis of isolation and mental illness – the list goes on. These are vital functions that we can’t simply automate, because nearly all this work depends on human presence, trust and local knowledge.
The federal government already has a foundation on which to build. Canada Service Corps exists as a national youth service initiative, designed to connect young people to service opportunities. The problem is scale. Volunteerism alone cannot absorb the kind of labour market shock that might be coming.
Opinion: AI won’t take your job, but the AI bubble might
Ottawa should create a federal “service year” that’s not a boutique program, but a core piece of labour and social policy. It can start with a major but non-compulsory expansion: tens of thousands of placements in nonprofits, municipalities, Indigenous governments and public institutions, with a living stipend, training and clear pathways into further education or work. Participants should earn a portable credential and a meaningful benefit: tuition-fee support, apprenticeship credits, or a wage subsidy that follows them into their first post-service job. Employers should be able to recognize it as proof of basic standards of reliability and skills.
The conventional wisdom is that Canadians would be thoroughly opposed. But while a 2025 Angus Reid study found that mandatory military service is unpopular, Canadians were far more supportive of a year of mandatory service in public health support, environmental work, youth services, or civil protection. A 2024 Research Co. poll found that 50 per cent of Canadians supported mandatory national service for 18-year-olds.
All this matters, because the case for national service is strongest where AI is likely to hit first: the entry-level labour market. Youth already face higher unemployment in weak cycles, and recent data show how quickly it can spike. If AI compresses white-collar hiring, a service year becomes a natural bridge.
Other countries show what a shared service institution can do for social cohesion and identity. Singapore’s national service has long been framed as a rite of passage that brings people from different backgrounds to train, live and serve together.
Canada’s hesitation about national service reflects our pluralist instinct to resist coercion and trust local initiative. Still, we need a response to AI’s changes to the labour market at national scale. A Canadian service year – civilian, practical and rooted in vital community needs – is an idea whose time has come.