Industry Committee on April 5th, 2022

[Dr. Gilles Brassard]

Since I'm a theoretician, I'm very comfortable with your question.

The short answer is that what I talked about at length, this “harvest now and decrypt later” strategy, is not a threat to ransomware, because to do ransomware, you need to do it today. It is not as if, in 10 years, when you will be able to decrypt messages sent today, that you can go back and ransom people who have moved on to something else already.

To ransom, you really need to be able—today on the spot—to decrypt and then get information that allows you to blackmail or what have you. This would require quantum computers being available already. If there is not one, then this is not a danger at the moment, but when it becomes available it will be a danger.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Does anyone else have any comment on cybersecurity?

[Dr. Shohini Ghose]

If I may, I can jump in. I'll say, maybe in addition to what Professor Brassard said, that a lot of information that is current will not be vulnerable to ransomware, but it could be that there's historical data or something in somebody's past that needs to be kept safe, as perhaps it will impact their current role or current credibility and that would be something that would be vulnerable to ransom.

More generally, I just wanted to point out that, with the race to protect all of our current information and our past information, that's something that is.... It's not really a race between countries, because either we're all winners and we protect everything or we're all losers. It's kind of like vaccinations. You can't just rely on protecting or creating quantum-safe data security for Canada because Canadian banks, for example, have transactions outside of Canada. Any security system is only as strong as its weakest link. I think that's an important piece to keep in mind.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That is an important piece. Are there any international efforts working together on that? We're just touching the surface here right now, and we have been asking some of our guests about international co-operative efforts. I'm just curious if there is anything going on in that field. I can just see the vulnerability here if what you're saying is true, which I do believe.

[Dr. Shohini Ghose]

Is that question for me?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes. I'm sorry. I should have been more specific.

[Dr. Shohini Ghose]

As far as I know, there isn't a coordinated, large-scale international effort. I think there is collaboration at the research level for sure, but not at any kind of a national strategy or at the industrial level.

[Dr. Gilles Brassard]

I agree.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

I'll ask this really quickly. I don't know who's taking advantage of SR and ED tax credits. We had a good response from the last panel on that. If you are, can we get an opinion as to whether they're working or not in terms of application? Is anybody taking advantage of those research tax credits?

No. I just wanted to make sure.

If I can move to Ms. Hall then, one of the things that we've also been identifying is bringing in young people and retaining them. I think Mr. Gagnon-Gordillo mentioned this as well. What can we do to continue to have people come through our systems to stay and not be plucked from Canada as we grow quantum computing and its workplace here in Canada?

[Dr. Kimberley Hall]

I have a suggestion that I really think we should consider. This suggestion was actually made by somebody last week, but I do think we need to develop a pan-Canada training program that involves collaboration among the institutions and collaboration with industry. I think CDL, the Creative Destruction Lab, was mentioned as a possible centre for directing such a thing, but I think that this could really help to bring more people here.

In terms of keeping them here, I've had several international students that have been successful in staying. There's been a lot of talk about difficulty in that, but I'm not sure. My experience thus far is that as long as somebody can get a job they seem to be able to stay.

Recruiting and retaining people is one of our key challenges. I think the universities are largely competing in this space now, and we need to work together. I really feel like if we had a training program that was beyond student exchanges, beyond internships, with courses that people could give from different institutions and that could rotate, for example, and with an actual accreditation that would attract people from outside, that would be an excellent addition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Dr. Hall.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us today.

Dr. Ghose, last week, Dr. Simmons made some rather alarming comments before the committee, which shocked me. She also talked about the possibility of Canada having an independent panel of experts to advise the government on how best to invest in sectors with development potential in Canada. This type of committee also exists in other countries.

What's your opinion about that?

If such a committee was created, what would its composition be?

[Dr. Gilles Brassard]

May I answer?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Yes, but I'd like to hear from Dr. Ghose first.

[Dr. Shohini Ghose]

Thank you for the question. I think that's a really important piece of developing our national strategy. I think it was a strong message that also came out in the consultations that happened already to try to create a plan for the future.

So yes, I am a strong supporter of the advisory board idea. I feel that the composition has to include expertise not just on the technology aspect of it and not just on the quantum information processing or scientific aspect of it. We also need experts from, for example, cybersecurity and industries that will be impacted, such as health care and of course finance and energy.

Beyond that, make sure that the composition is not business as usual. Unfortunately, as I've already mentioned, we often find that we don't get a diverse enough group around the table. I feel that the scientific advisory board should be something that takes that into account.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you very much, Dr. Ghose.

Mr. Gagnon‑Gordillo, you said earlier that you are part of a major industrial cluster in the Sherbrooke region with respect to the development of quantum computing in Quebec. You also said that you were about to buy a quantum computer.

I would ask you to clarify this for me, because, on the one hand, we're being told that the quantum computer needs to be invented, but on the other hand, you're going to buy one because it exists. I'm a little confused.

Could you clarify that?

Dr. Brassard, I'd like to hear your observations after that.

[Olivier Gagnon-Gordillo]

When people refer to quantum computers, many talk about buying them, while others talk about simulation. In fact, what is being bought isn't so much a computer as access to a prototype quantum computer.

The one we're talking about is IBM's EAGLE System One, which has a 127‑qubit processor. What you're buying is specialized access to that computer, which allows more access to be able to test algorithms. Subsequently, access to the IBM quantum space, which already exists at the Université de Sherbrooke, will continue to exist. Access to this space is not specialized, but shared, so even if IBM comes out with new models, we will continue to have that access.

Again, when people talk about a quantum computer, they're talking about a prototype.

I'll now turn it over to Dr. Brassard, who will be able to round out my answer.

[Dr. Gilles Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Gagnon‑Gordillo.

That's very good, what you just said.

Yes, there are prototypes at the moment that we can buy. We can also rent specialized access time. These prototypes work with a relatively small number of qubits, or quantum bits, for example 127 qubits. If we really want to apply algorithms on a large scale, for example, to break contemporary cryptographies, we need a lot more qubits. To our knowledge, no quantum computer currently allows us to do that, but there are prototypes that allow us to start experimenting and to see how well it works on a small scale.

We can rent a prototype from IBM, but there is also a Montreal company, Anyon Systems, that manufactures quantum computers. We can even place an order, and a quantum computer will be delivered within the next year or two. So we can buy a Quebec‑made quantum computer right now.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Dr. Brassard, do you share Dr. Simmons's concern about the urgent need to act that we are currently seeing in Canada?

[Dr. Gilles Brassard]

I think what I've said so far has been very clear; the answer is yes. It's a catastrophe in the making. If we don't do something, it will be the apocalypse.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Lapointe, you have five minutes.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for Dr. Ghose.

I'll have you know I did watch your TED talk and I know that I will never flip a coin to settle a matter with a quantum computer, ever.

I want to thank you for all the work you do in supporting women in science. From your experience, I'd like to hear more about your work in implementing equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Why is this lens important, and does it incorporate the principles of GBA+ analysis in the work that you do?

[Dr. Shohini Ghose]

I'll start with the reason it's important. There are many reasons. Whether you want to talk about social justice or economic progress, the point is if we wanted to really have an edge in quantum or even other areas of STEM, AI, or many other areas where there's an under-representation of women, we are just not using the full talent that is out there.

What we know already from studies is there's no actual fundamental reason why women cannot contribute to these areas. In fact, they have been, but they just haven't had the equal opportunities or resources. From that perspective, it's just not very efficient or optimal to be only tapping into part of the whole workforce. We're losing out on ideas. We're losing out on economic progress. Of course, this is a matter of social justice as well. Those are reasons why this is an important issue.

Going forward with GBA+, I know that NSERC, for example, in all of its funding applications now insists on that. There are also some additional measures in place for training for highly qualified personnel, as they're called, which are basically students and post-docs, where any kind of funding has to include some level of effort towards being more inclusive. However, these, I believe, are still at a level which are token. We need to be much more proactive about this, because the fact is the needle has not moved in over a decade.

What we are trying to advocate for is a much more structured and scientific approach, which is about applying full frameworks, setting the goals, incentivizing this kind of work, providing value for it, celebrating it and attaching dollars to it. In the end, this is just like every other goal: it needs resources and dollars.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I agree.

In your expert opinion, what steps need to be taken to ensure the national quantum strategy is inclusive? What would be the potential consequences to the quantum technology sector in Canada if EDI is not applied?

[Dr. Shohini Ghose]

I think, to answer the second part of your question first, when we don't include EDI, the effects have already been clear. For example, you could look at AI where there's all these unintentional consequences where we have built-in bias into all of these training systems. That's a clear example.

There's another test everybody could do. Go online and type in “famous physicists” on Google and just see what you get. You'll see that Google has learned all of our history of biases about who can be a scientist. Even at that fundamental level there's a huge negative impact. That answers what could happen in the quantum sector as well.

Similarly, if you look at the executive boards of most of the start-up companies in quantum today, already you're seeing a very skewed representation. This is going to impact what these technologies are going to be used for, who will get access and who will be making decisions about what these technologies will be used for. In health care, for example, are we going to be focused on women's health or not? Are we going to tailor these technologies towards all of the population? These are all questions that arise.

I know I have limited time, so I'm happy to discuss this more or submit something in writing, but I'll stop there for now.