Evidence of meeting #14 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was computing.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Yes, what the government is faced with, in its consultation at least, is whether to spread thin and make many small bets, or make a small number of large bets?
Chief Executive Officer, Nord Quantique
I would say there should not be too many criteria, obviously. Anyway, you won't have the expertise necessary to do that. It should really be focused around.... We have the good fortune to have centres of excellence in Canada, so this limits in a sense the number of possible companies that can emerge. I would centre the decision mostly around that, and then I agree with Mr. Janik on how it's going to evolve over the—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thanks.
Mr. Yazdi, do you have anything to add?
Chief Executive Director, Anyon Systems Inc.
I think the decision should be a funnel-type decision-making process. You start with a few bets—not too many, but not too few either. Then you let the companies make progress, and the winners or leads would come out after the seven-year process. That's when the country has to make a decision.
I just want to also emphasize, if you look at China, given its resources and given its manpower, whatever you call it, it did not choose the way we're doing stuff. It's like a type of Manhattan Project, or a Bletchley Park type of project—all the resources are starting to be consolidated behind one or two groups, and they're making very rapid strides. They're making very rapid gains. Five or six years ago, when we started, there was essentially nothing in experimental superconducting qubits in China, and now they have a 65-qubit chip bigger than Google's.
This is a very important question, and I think it's subject to further discussion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Nate.
We'll go now to Monsieur Généreux for five minutes.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for their testimony.
I'd like to delve further into the issue of funding.
Mr. Janik, you said that you raised over $170 million and that this represented about 20% of the amount you needed to build a quantum computer.
Does that mean that your product could be worth $1 billion one day?
Head of Product, Xanadu Quantum Technologies Inc.
The total adjustable market for quantum computing right now is estimated at $65 billion when we deliver a fault-tolerant quantum computer. I'd say that is the pessimistic estimate, compared to some of the other ones that have been out there.
I can't stress enough that when fault-tolerant quantum computing gets here, there will not be an industry that will not be disrupted by this. Every single thing that we know will change. It will take time for the applications to catch up, but this will be as revolutionary as digital computing was at its advent in the 1950s. The market is definitely there.
We've stood up quantum computers today. We've had six different quantum computers online since 2019, with users from large national labs in Canada and the U.S., and from corporations. Those are all kind of at that pre-fault tolerance, pre-economic value stage.
The R and D part is not the part that will take a billion dollars. We believe that we're well funded to take us well into building that fault-tolerant module, to being able to demonstrate and de-risk all the technology and all the science required to build a fault-tolerant quantum computer.
Once you need to build the machine that builds the machine, and once you need to switch modes from R and D into true manufacturing, that is a very large investment. You need to go to the largest production facilities in the world—the TSMCs, the GlobalFoundries, the Intels—and get their most advanced production lines producing these chips at scale and then integrating them. It's a very big task.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
We hope that the national quantum strategy will be implemented soon.
Dr. Laflamme, research and development is normally carried out at universities, such as the University of Waterloo, the Université de Sherbrooke and Université Laval, in Quebec City.
Shouldn't government money go to universities? That's where the research and training is done. The government could then, in co‑operation with the National Research Council of Canada, or NRC, commercialize or allow the product to be commercialized, after listening to the solutions proposed by the Centres collégiaux de transfert de technologie au Québec, or CCTT.
We're talking today about three private entrepreneurs who are also looking for federal funding. If we had an amount to distribute, what percentage should go to universities for research, and what percentage should go to private companies?
Professor of Physics, Canada Research Chair in Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
That's a very good question.
Funds should be distributed in such a way that there is a positive interaction between universities and industry. Making a quantum computer is incredibly complex. Universities can create really simple prototypes and lay out principles of operation, but it's the industry that integrates all this to build a quantum computer. The reason is simple: students spend three, four, or five years in university doing their master's or doctoral studies, but it takes even longer to build a quantum computer, and that requires follow‑up.
The national quantum strategy should really include a partnership between universities and industry, rather than treating the two separately.
The idea behind the quantum ecosystem that I've talked about several times today is to bring universities and industry together so that they can benefit from each other. The distribution of funding between industry and academia should depend on the project and its size. The allocation won't be the same for a research project as for an integration project or a quantum computer manufacturing project. If you're asking me for a number—
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Do you think there will ever be a battery charger that can recharge a battery in nine seconds using a quantum computer?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
We could discuss this again in a future study, Mr. Généreux.
Mr. Dong, you now have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you very much, Chair, and I want to thank all the witnesses for coming today.
I took note of what Dr. Laflamme said, that Canada never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I will memorize this as a reminder.
All my colleagues asked great questions, both today and the day before. I think now I'm more confused than before from the testimony. It's full of contradictions. I think, as with any new technology, that is actually a good thing. That will help the committee to come up with a study or recommendations that will be more comprehensive. I just feel for the analysts, who will be having trouble to put together a report.
Speaking of contradictions, I hear the explanation that it's not ready, yet it is ready. When I asked a question on Friday about the processor chip—we need to have a manufacturing capacity—I was also told that the computer processing hardware may be very different with quantum computing, so it's really hard to predict this. There is the contradiction there.
I will list a whole bunch of them, and you can explain it to me later.
In my head there is the supply chain aspect, including critical minerals that will provide the raw materials that are necessary for mass production, and then there is the manufacturing sector. To what stage should they be preparing for this disruptive technology? Then there's the research aspect of it, and we heard the testimony on this. The one contradiction was the receding globalization, but I also heard that it's necessary for Canadian researchers to work collaboratively with smart people around the world.
To me, these three main stages are full of contradictions.
I want to start with Mr. Laflamme, if you have any comment on this, and then go to Mr. Janik, Dr. Yazdi and Dr. St-Jean for comments.
Professor of Physics, Canada Research Chair in Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
Mr. Dong, it is a really good question, and you're absolutely right. There are contradictory forces or directions that come in. I could make a little joke that when you come into the quantum world, things appear very different from what you are expecting, and you can probably see a little of this coming through here.
Let's come back to interaction, internationally or not. [Technical Difficulty—Editor] pure research, fundamental research into this phenomenon. Can we harness this phenomenon for a practical purpose? If we just want to demonstrate proof of principle that this thing works, we publish our results in journals. That's how academics get rewards or fame; they publish a paper that makes a breakthrough and does something.
That piece of the research has to be international. You have to collaborate with the rest of the world. You gain something from the rest of the world, and the rest of the world gains something from you. In that sense, that piece has no kind of direction yet. This is really good.
Once you have an idea of how to build a device for practical things, suddenly you have to make a transition. Sometimes this happens in universities. A researcher at a university says, “Ah, we can patent this.” The researchers at the university have to be very agile in realizing that sometimes there are things that are purely fundamental, and their reward is fame.
Let's suppose they get a Nobel Prize for the work they have done. Suddenly, they realize that this thing becomes practical. Then they have to be quiet about it. They have to have a team, and they have to tell their team at some point that there are things they are to be very quiet about.
With my students, for example, there are things that I will not discuss outside of my group meeting, and the students know that certain things are not to be discussed until we do certain things with them, so there is this transition.
When you come to industry, suddenly you have a certain IP that protects what you want to have. Even that, with a company.... Again, Dr. Yazdi mentioned the chain of equipment that you need, certain pieces that you need. You don't build everything totally from scratch. He mentioned FBGAs. Suddenly you rely on the global trades around the world to provide some of these pieces, so you cannot be totally isolated. In fact, you should not be totally isolated because suddenly you will realize there are better ones than the one you knew about, and you learn about this from your colleagues around the world. Suddenly there is somebody who makes a little chip somewhere, let's say in Austria, in France, in the U.S. or in Taiwan, that helps you make a leap and control what you have in your lab better.
Liberal
Liberal
Professor of Physics, Canada Research Chair in Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
I apologize.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
We're already over time, but it was a very interesting answer. Thank you, Mr. Laflamme, for that.
We'll move to Mr. Lemire for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. St‑Jean, what I find intriguing about quantum computing is the logic involved in operating this type of computer. I'm thinking in particular of the electricity consumption it may require.
Are there clusters of servers that consume endless data and energy, or is it a computer that constantly regenerates its own energy?
Are the energy needs of a quantum computer greater than those of traditional computers?
Chief Executive Officer, Nord Quantique
We don't expect to have those needs. However, my answer needs to be somewhat adjusted based on the comments made earlier by Mr. Janik.
There are many ways to build a quantum computer, and the technology used can vary. For our part, we use superconducting circuits. There are some advantages to using them, because no heat is generated by the processor itself.
I should add that this technique presupposes the existence of computer controls that, for the moment at least, still function in a conventional way, if I can put it that way.
It's difficult to predict exactly how this technology will be deployed in the future, but we don't think it's going to be an issue in terms of energy consumption. In fact, we believe that these processors will consume less energy than the current systems, taking into account the large number of calculations they will be able to make.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Quebec has a large hydroelectric capacity, which is managed by its Crown corporation, Hydro‑Québec. Does that not give it an advantage in that area? I imagine that ties are being forged with the Crown corporation. In an article for Le Devoir, Alain McKenna highlighted the fact that quantum computing could be a huge solution for Hydro‑Québec.
Have you established ties with the Crown corporation?
Does Quebec have a strategic advantage in terms of hosting research centres, precisely because energy is affordable and accessible in large quantities?
Chief Executive Officer, Nord Quantique
I don't think that's a critical point. I know what you're referring to in terms of Hydro‑Québec. It's a very interesting research project, which is more focused on value for money internally, as I understand it.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
[Technical difficulty—Editor] and I found it interesting to think about the role that energy consumption could play in quantum computing.