Industry Committee on April 1st, 2022

[Dr. Stephanie Simmons]

As I said, I'm happy to take these conversations off-line privately, but there are many things, and it doesn't need the quantum-specific expertise which I bring to the table to answer those kinds of questions.

I think it's fairly easy to imagine ways to ensure compliance in short order on certain items. One of the precursor elements are going to be the NIST standardization process along post-quantum cryptography, because many large organizations are loath to make next steps until there exists some standard to adopt. My recommendation is to say to adopt all of those standards, layer them on so that they have to all be hacked to get through, and put in these additional layers of protection that are provably secure, because none of those post-quantum algorithms are actually proven to work.

As I said, there were three that were put forward that have been suggested as ultimately resilient against quantum attack, and three of them have fallen. It's not all of them, but we haven't yet subjected any of these post-quantum algorithms to attack like RSA has seen over decades of work, and that's quantum attack or classical attack.

My suggestion is for critical infrastructures, such as interbank lending, to start with—but also things to do even with consumer banking. Imagine some solution using one-time pad distribution, or ultimately QKD for renewal outside of keys.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Dr. Simmons, I have only about another 10 seconds, and I don't think that's enough time to get through all of your recommendations. If you could make a written submission specific to banking policy, I would find that very helpful.

[Dr. Stephanie Simmons]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Kram.

We'll move to Mr. Fillmore for five minutes.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Tremendous thanks to the witnesses today for helping to illustrate the magnitude of the challenge that lies ahead, as well as the magnitude of the opportunity.

In listening to each of you, when I think of this kind of Manhattan project-scale effort that's required, it strikes me that there are probably—and correct me if I'm missing anything—three components to that: one is talent, one is dollars, and one is policy. These are the things that have come up today, and in our previous meeting as well.

In the time that I have, I want to touch briefly with our academic witnesses today on the talent piece, with Dr. Simmons on the dollar piece, and with Allison from D-Wave on the policy piece, given that you're the government-relations expert on the panel today.

To Dr. Broadbent and Dr. McCauley, are the graduates at your universities, and Canadian institutions in general, leaving school with the requirements that the industry is looking for right now to build a quantum talent base in Canada?

[Dr. Edward McCauley]

Dr. Broadbent, do you want to begin, and I'll follow up?

[Dr. Anne Broadbent]

Go ahead.

[Dr. Edward McCauley]

I mentioned that many of our universities have very strong quantum science programs, and they are collaborating extensively. My joke about entanglement really is there.

I think we need to make an extra-special effort, as Dr. Simmons mentioned and also Allison from D-Wave mentioned, with respect to how we can actually increase the talent pool. Our undergraduates are very interested in this area, but I think we need stronger graduate programs in particular. I also think we need to have graduate programs that perhaps integrate some of the skills, in terms of AI, machine learning and quantum pieces, to combine the expertise we have.

We're developing them. All of our universities are putting them forward.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Okay.

Dr. Broadbent.

[Dr. Anne Broadbent]

I would like to add that at the undergraduate level in mathematics, we're developing transferable skills. We could really invest in more of that, in people with inquisitive minds and logical thinkers.

I see a huge need and interest in more quantum as well as cryptography studies. It would be really great to bolster the offer we have, in terms of master's programs, as well as internships and opportunities that will link students with their future careers.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Okay. Thank you for that.

Dr. Simmons, I think you illustrated most starkly the scale of the challenge ahead. Can you frame for us the kinds of financial investments that government or the private sector needs to make to solve this?

[Dr. Stephanie Simmons]

Yes, and if you'll forgive me, I'll also speak with my professor hat on and say that actually, yes, we are training phenomenal talent. The challenge is that they're all going elsewhere. We are training phenomenal talent. We're very successful at Photonic because we can recruit them back, but that's unusual.

To your point about funding, we've heard on many panels before this that a very successful model is a DARPA-like model. Having an objective that could be bid on and met by any of a number of corporate organizations as well as research organizations would be a phenomenal way to model this, in addition to having procurement contracts. You can have a contract for an objective rather than for an actual physical deliverable. Both would be fantastic models, but they're not the same as a grant.

One example is that of a satellite repeater. I wanted to discuss the opportunity to build out the quantum Internet across Canada, which has a unique satellite-based deployment that is not being focused on in Europe to the same degree. We have an opportunity to have a giant competition for bids, and yes, to have some companies with ratchet clauses, such that if they're not meeting their milestones, they don't get it. The scale of the funding needs to be at the level of $50 million to $100 million per project for it to be competitive with what is on offer by the U.K., the U.S. and Europe.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Okay. Thanks for that.

Mr. Chair, I hope there's a minute left.

Allison, on the policies, I think we'll probably have to speak to this idea of a single front door, a concierge kind of approach, perhaps, for the Government of Canada to rationalize our work on this. Maybe it's our commitment to create CARPA, our version of DARPA.

Do you have any thoughts on what government needs to be doing in terms of policy, funding aside?

[Allison Schwartz]

I think that policy-wise, leaning into public-private partnerships and looking at existing organizations that already have relationships with the industry, academia and government are going to be key. Then it's about utilizing those already-existing P3s in order to focus on what those grand challenges are. What are the public sector needs? How do we optimize vaccine distribution? How do we tackle some of the issues we have on sustainability? How do we train up folks about the different systems that are out there?

From a policy perspective, I think that you look into and lean into public-private partnerships. That's the way to scale up quickly.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Okay. Thanks for that.

I hope, in future answers today, we get to hear a little bit more about people's thoughts on CARPA, the Canada advanced research project agency. Thanks so much for all of your input.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore and Ms. Schwartz.

We now go to you, Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas, for two and a half minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Broadbent, you talked about the added value of equity, diversity and inclusion criteria in relation to individuals. However, in the federal funding ecosystem, those criteria do not exist at the institutional level; the factors are not part of the funding criteria for research grants.

I would say the University of Ottawa is better off than small and medium-sized universities in the regions. The critical mass of those universities is a consideration. In some cases, the programs are too big for small and medium-sized universities to apply for funding.

I'd like to hear what you think about the fact that the institutional dimension isn't taken into account. Wouldn't you say that's a form of territorial inequity?

[Dr. Anne Broadbent]

Thank you for your question.

At the University of Ottawa, we have to deal with inequity as well. Being a bilingual institution, we often find ourselves penalized for providing bilingual services because it requires additional funding.

I apply for funding to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, NSERC, and it has a significant focus on equity, diversity and inclusion. I've seen that the federal government uses a gender-based analysis plus, or GBA+, framework. I believe you're talking about a different type of inequity, though—one that has more to do with the university's size.

Is that right?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

That's right.

From what I've seen, the federal government does not take into account small or medium-sized universities. Large universities have the upper hand because the funding criteria give preference to universities that have previously received research funding.

I'm trying to figure out how small and medium-sized universities can be included to make the process fairer for them.

[Dr. Anne Broadbent]

When I was on the NSERC selection committee for fellowships and scholarships, we would consider the merits and excellence of the person, not necessarily of the research facility. We looked at the opportunities previously provided to them.

That's what the process is missing and needs to incorporate. In other words, consideration should be given to the opportunities researchers present, and the assessment should focus on their ability to maximize funding opportunities.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Broadbent.

Now I have a quick question for you. You said that you—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas.

Unfortunately, you're out of time. You'll get an opportunity to ask your question in the third round.

We now go to Mr. Masse for two and a half minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our analysts, who have already provided me with a response on the SR and ED tax credits and what we had called for. I really appreciate it. I'll make sure that we get it around to the rest of the committee members. I want to thank them for that, because there's more we could probably do with regard to some of the things that are checked off. At any rate, I want to acknowledge that.

I want to move really quickly to Mr. McCauley with regard to keeping and retaining students. I raised this at the last meeting and it has been raised at this meeting. I'm also wondering whether we're doing enough—I'm not seeing it in my neck of the woods at the University of Windsor—in dealing with international and graduate students, and also having them have access to their family members to join them over here in Canada.

Some of their hours aren't counted in our immigration system, which I think is really weak response by our country. On top of that, reuniting family members to stay in the country is something that is a problem. Are there any thoughts about how we can improve that to retain talent? If you retain the family here, I think you would have a much better chance of having them stay longer.

[Dr. Edward McCauley]

Thank you.

I think Canada needs to look at all of these different policy options you talked about. I know that Dr. Simmons raised some as well.

I know that when we're recruiting here to the University of Calgary, whether it be for graduate student positions or a faculty member, we actually consider the family, because we're recruiting a family unit, and if we want to retain those individuals, having the appropriate policies in place to support them as they transition here to Canada...and then try to figure out how we can make sure that we can retain them if at all possible.

I think that the other issue we probably need to look at in Canada is how we include work-integrated learning opportunities for our undergraduate and graduate students as part of the labour issues around retention in Canada.

I think there's a variety of areas that IRCC can be looking at. I know that they are very active in this area because, as you said, the retention of talent is just so important, and it is about families and their contributions to the local communities as well as to Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, and there are restrictions on how many hours they can work, as well as volunteerism and a series of things. Would you include those types of elements as well?

I'm just going by the experiences that I have seen. I think the stronger the bonds we create within the community, the more opportunity we'll have to keep them there, and then we also get local champions who want to keep them there. They're not stealing jobs; there's such a lack of support that.... At any rate, I will let you talk.