Artificial intelligence is sold as a road to prosperity. It will make workers faster, help companies produce more, reduce costs and open new opportunities.
All of that may be true.
But I think about this as a father. I have children growing up in this new world. I wonder whether they will ride the tidal wave of AI to the top, using these tools to learn, work and prosper. Or will they be caught underneath it, struggling in an economy that no longer needs as many people?
Every parent wants their children to succeed. But a good society should not depend on only a few children winning while everyone else is left behind. Would it not be better if all citizens could benefit from this prosperity?
That is the real question. Not whether AI will create wealth. It almost certainly will. The question is who will own that wealth, who will benefit, and who will be pushed to the margins.
Canada has seen this problem before. We know the curse of resource economies. When one resource becomes a larger part of the economy, governments and companies become obsessed with extracting more of it. They build roads, pipelines and ports to support more extraction.
But often, the people living closest to that wealth do not become richer. The resource is taken, shipped away and sold for profit, while many communities remain poor. Think about Alberta. Instead of investing in people, governments become trapped in the logic of the resource.
AI may become the new resource economy.
The resource will not be oil, gas, minerals or timber. It will be data, computing power, energy, infrastructure and capital. The new mines will be data centres. The new pipelines will be power grids. The new refineries will train and operate artificial intelligence models.
Companies will make more money. Productivity will increase. Some workers will become more valuable because they know how to use AI well. But many others will find their labour is no longer needed. Companies like Rogers just laid off 10 000 workers; Bell laid off 700 managers.
That is the hard part too many people avoid saying out loud. Many jobs will be lost. Some will disappear entirely. Others will remain, but with fewer workers doing more. A company that once needed 100 people may need 20 people using AI tools. A newsroom may need fewer writers. A call centre may need almost no human beings.
The winners will keep their jobs, earn more and use AI to become even more productive. The losers will be told to retrain, adapt, hustle and be resilient. But not everyone can become a software engineer or AI manager.
This is where the paradox begins.
If AI removes more human input from the economy, who will have the money to buy the products and services AI helps create? If millions become less secure, less employed or poorer, then who exactly is this economy serving?
We may end up with a strange system where AI produces services for other AI systems, while a small number of humans own, manage or maintain the capital. Everyone else risks being left on the fringes, earning less and depending more on government support.
But governments are not ready for this.
Politicians still speak as if old tools will solve new problems. They promise affordability, tax relief, training programs and innovation strategies. Yet many governments seem stuck. They know disruption is coming, but they do not know what solution will work.
Can they tax AI productivity? Perhaps. But if they tax too much, companies may move their money elsewhere. Can they regulate AI? Yes, but too much regulation may slow investment. Can they protect workers? They should, but they may not know which jobs will vanish next.
So what happens to investments in people?
Health care is expensive. Education is expensive. Child care is expensive. Housing is expensive. Supporting families, elders, veterans, students and workers does not always produce an immediate return for investors. A data centre may look like growth. A classroom may look like a cost.
That is a dangerous way to think.
A country is not wealthy simply because its companies are rich. A country is wealthy when its people can live with dignity, raise families, receive health care, learn, work and participate in society.
AI could help us build that kind of country. It could improve medical diagnosis, reduce paperwork, support teachers and make public services better. But that will not happen by accident.
If we treat AI only as a resource to extract, we will repeat an old mistake. We will create wealth while deepening inequality. We will celebrate productivity while forgetting people.
As a father, I do not want my children to survive the AI economy by standing on top of others. I want them to live in a country where technology strengthens everyone, where productivity creates dignity, and where prosperity is shared.
That is the real challenge before us. Not whether AI will make Canada richer. It probably will. The question is whether Canadians will be richer too.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette is a former Liberal MP for Winnipeg Centre and a professor at the University of Ottawa.
