Part one offers a brief discussion of the Canadian quantum scene and, more saliently, the expert panel along with some details about the agencies (three were nameless) that requested the report and the questions they wanted answered.

Since I published part one on February 3, 2025 there have been some developments. While they are not directly related to Canada’s quantum efforts at this time, the current US fixation on critical minerals (ours, Greenland’s, and Ukraine’s) and water resources (ours and Greenland’s), access to these materials is of great importance to new and emerging technologies; see my “Water, critical minerals, technology and US expansionist ambitions (Manifest Destiny)” posted on February 13, 2025 for an overview. As well, my February 14, 2025 posting “China’s ex-UK ambassador clashes with ‘AI godfather’ on panel at AI Action Summit in France (February 10 – 11, 2025)” gives a sense of just how tense and competitive the international situation is vis à vis emerging technologies such as.artificial intelligence (and perhaps one day soon, quantum technologies?).

Getting back to the topic, this second of two parts offers some report highlights (from my perspective as someone who is not an expert on quantum technologies, or any other technology for that matter) and includes my comments interlaced with excerpts from the report.

A little history from the introduction to the report on quantum potential

I love historical tidbits, from the Quantum Potential Introduction,

…

Early in the 20th century, physicists believed they had a solid understanding of how the physical world functioned. Using classical theories inherited from luminaries such as Isaac Newton and James Clerk Maxwell, physicists thought that nearly all laws of the physical world could be accounted for. Lord Kelvin is often attributed as saying: “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” [p. 2 of the print version and p. 30 of the PDF version]

…

There’s also this, from the Quantum Potential Introduction,

Conspicuously missing from traditional accounts of the early history of quantum mechanics are the contributions of women, racialized researchers, and researchers outside Europe and North America. Despite systemic barriers and inequities in research and educational opportunities, these scientists made important contributions to the development of the field. For example, Canadian physicist Laura Chalk performed the first experiments that confirmed Schrödinger’s theory of wave mechanics. Wu Chien-Shiung, well-known for her groundbreaking parity-violation experiments, was the first to measure clear evidence of the correlations between entangled pairs of photons. … [pp. 3-4 in print version and pp. 31-32 in PDF version]

The source of the panel’s evidence is always interesting (to me, if no one else), from the Quantum Potential Introduction,

The panel’s assessment was based on a review of diverse sources of evidence, including peer-reviewed publications and grey literature (i.e., policy documents, government publications and websites, as well as reports by national and international organizations and committees). The panel also engaged with guest speakers from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). In October 2022, the panel made site visits to two firms, D-Wave and Photonic Inc. [emphasis mine], as part of its evidence gathering. In January 2023, it hosted a session at Quantum Days 2023, a Canadian conference for quantum academics, students, and professionals, and received input from participants on topics relevant to this assessment.

D-Wave Systems was formerly headquartered in Burnaby, British Columbia (BC), according to its Wikepedia entry the company is now headquartered in Palo Alto, California. Many still consider it to be a BC company as it maintains a presence here. Coincidentally, a “Senior Vice-President, Quantum Technologies and Systems Products, D-Wave Systems Inc.,” Mark W. Johnson, was listed in the panel’s report as a member of the expert panel.

Coincidence No. 2: Photonic Inc. boasts Stephanie Simmons, a former member of the expert panel and the company’s current Chief Quantum Officer and founder (according to the About Us webpage‘s team member profile on the Photonic website) is also professor at Simon Fraser University in the Vancouver metro area of British Columbia [BC]) and co-chair with Raymond Laflamme, (chair of the expert panel) of Canada’s Quantum Advisory Council, which monitors the National Quantum Strategy. Photonic, Simmons’ company is headquartered in Coquitlam, BC (according to its LinkedIn profile).

Despite the fact that members of the expert panel are mostly located in eastern Canada, they seem to have made their only site visits to ‘quantum’ businesses in what is known as the metro Vancouver area while missing a major ‘quantum’ business (Xanadu Quantum Technologies) headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Seems odd.

It gets even more odd where in Chapter 3 in the subsection headed: Quantum expertise is unevenly distributed across Canada (scroll down to Chapter 3 and look for the subhead in the report excerpts) where Xanadu Quantum Technologies remains unmentioned in a listing of Ontario companies but both Photonic Inc. and D-Wave Systems are in a listing of British Columbia companies.

Adding to the oddity of it all, Christian Weedbrook, founder and CEO of Xanadu Quantum Technologies, is listed as a member of Canada’s Quantum Advisory Council (as of October 3, 2024), representing one of the few companies to be found on the list. “The Quantum Advisory Council has been established to provide impartial advice to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and monitor the progress of the National Quantum Strategy.”

Getting back to the report, here’s the last bit from the Quantum Potential Introduction,

1.5 Report Structure
Chapter 2 introduces three categories of quantum technologies — computing, communications, and sensing — and explores their commercialization potential. The chapter provides an overview of the possible economic impact of quantum technologies for select sectors in Canada that are among the most likely adopters and beneficiaries of quantum technologies. Chapter 3 describes the quantum technology landscape, positioning Canada within the global ecosystem in terms
of research activity, market activity, public policy, and the international quantum value chain. Chapters 4 and 5 provide an in-depth review of the ethical, legal, social, and policy implications as well as the institutional and regulatory challenges associated with the adoption of quantum technologies. Chapter 6 examines the enabling conditions and potential levers available to the public and private sectors to advance the adoption of quantum technologies. Chapter 7 introduces a responsible approach to the adoption of quantum technologies and provides the panel’s final reflections.

Commercialization in Chapter two

“Chapter 2: Commercialization and Adoption of Quantum Technologies” offers this piece of information about why adoption of quantum computing may take some time, from Quantum Potential,

… Economic factors also play an important role; in 2020, the cost of a classical bit was on the order of one-millionth of a cent, whereas the cost of a physical qubit was around US$10,000 and the cost of a logical qubit was estimated to be over US$1 million, and likely between US$10 to 100 million [emphases mine] (Swallow & Joneckis, 2021). [p. 16 in print version and page 44 of PDF version]

…

An estimate of “over US$1 million and likely between US$10 to 100 million” suggests that the experts have no idea of the potential cost for a logical qubit.

Moving on: who knew? It seems we already have quantum sensors in operation in Canada, from Quantum Potential Chapter 2,

Several federal government programs have already been launched to support the development and adoption of quantum sensors in Canada (ISED, 2023d). These include the Department of National Defence (DND) Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) call for quantum sensing projects for defence and security (DND, 2023); the NRC Internet of Things: Quantum Sensors Challenge program (NRC, 2022b) and Quantum Photonic Sensing and Security program
(NRC, 2022a); and the Innovative Solutions Canada call to support pre-commercial quantum sensor prototypes “that can be tested in real life settings and address a variety of priorities within the Government of Canada” (ISC, 2022). [p. 18 in print version and p. 46 in PDF version]

There’s an interesting subsection on Communications, from Quantum Potential Chapter 2

Broadly speaking, quantum communications involve two related areas: (i) transmitting quantum information from one location to another, and (ii) ensuring secure communications that cannot be decrypted by a quantum computer. As to the first point, there are many potential applications for transmitting quantum information, including a quantum internet that could link quantum computers
together; blind quantum computing that allows clients to remotely access a quantum computer in such a way that the vendor does not have access to their information; exchanging quantum states for cryptographic protocols; and linking quantum sensors. Importantly, these applications require quantum networks that allow for the exchange of qubits and the distribution of entangled quantum states across nodes in that network (Judge, 2022).4

As to the second point (i.e., ensuring secure communications), many applications of quantum communications relate to cryptography. [emphasis mine] This is a vast area of research and technology development that includes key distribution, encryption, digital signatures, authentications, digital currencies, and much more. As noted in Chapter 1, large quantum computers will someday have the ability to break nearly all existing encryption schemes, such as the RSA and elliptic curve cryptography algorithms that are widely used today, as well as common alternatives. To mitigate this threat, there are at least two possible options. … [p. 22 in print version and p. 50 in PDF version]

This becomes more interesting when you know that Laflamme, chair of the expert panel, has a major research interest in quantum cryptography, from my May 11, 2015 posting; scroll down to the ‘Raymond Laflamme’ subhead,

..;.

One of his [Laflamme’s] major research interests is quantum cryptography, a means of passing messages you can ensure are private. Laflamme’s team and a team in Vienna (Austria) have enabled two quantum communication systems, one purely terrestrial version, which can exchange messages with another such system up to 100 km. away. [emphases mine and added December 6, 2024]

If you’re curious about quantum communications or cybersecurity, you might want to pay special attention to Quantum Potential Chapter 2’s subsection ‘2.1.3 Communications’, which includes some surprising (to me) information,

Canada is among several countries working on satellite QKD technology

Satellite communication is another way of implementing QKD [quantum key distribution; a type of quantum encryption] while avoiding the issues associated with fibre optic cabling. It will likely be used for long-distance QKD, while fibre-based QKD will be used for local communications networks. Canada is currently a leader [emphasis mine] in this area and is pursuing satellite-based QKD through the Quantum Encryption and Science Satellite (QEYSSat) program. Led by the Canadian Space Agency, QEYSSat is a collaborative project that includes Honeywell Aerospace and the Institute for Quantum Computing at the University of Waterloo, with nine additional collaborators at universities across Canada (including a QKD ground station at the University of Calgary) and nine additional collaborating organizations around the world (CSA, 2020; UWaterloo, 2021). Other foreign jurisdictions actively developing satellite-based QKD include China (Optica, 2022; Jones, 2023), Germany (DLR, n.d.), India (ET Telecom, 2023), Israel (QuantLR, 2021), Japan (Mamiya et al., 2022), Luxembourg (Burkitt-Gray, 2021), Singapore (GW, 2019; SpeQtral, 2022), the United Kingdom (Pultarova, 2021), and the European Union (Kramer, 2022; E.C., 2023) [pp. 26 -27 in the print version and pp.. 54 – 55 in the PDF version]

I’ve stumbled across a couple of news releases announcing research on quantum networks, one of the topics in Chapter 2 of Quantum Potential,

…

Although quantum networking is an active area of research — for example, it is one of the central goals of a €1 billion commitment by the European Union (Quantum Flagship, 2017; Cartlidge, 2018) — it is far from technological maturity and commercial availability, and unlikely to be available before 2035 (QDNL, 2020). Nevertheless, many countries are interested in building quantum networks, including Canada (Box 2.1), and near-term investments in these networks will be beneficial to a wide range of quantum technologies over the longer term. [p. 27 in print version and p. 55 in PDF version]

Sadly, Box 2.1 doesn’t offer very exciting information, from Chapter two of Quantum Potential,

Box 2.1 A National Secure Quantum Communications Network

Canada’s National Quantum Strategy (NQS) identified the implementation of a national secure quantum communications network as a key priority (ISED, 2023d). According to the NQS, there is a large commercial market tied to the secure transmission of digital information, which is highly vulnerable to emerging quantum technologies. A secure quantum communications network would incorporate quantum communications technologies as well as QRC protocols to mitigate these risks. DND has committed to developing quantum networks capable of transmitting quantum information over long distances by 2030 (DND & CAF, 2023). The NQS also identifies both land- and satellite-based infrastructure as important, pointing to QEYSSat and the NRC’s High-Throughput and Secure Networks Challenge program as initiatives directed toward this goal (ISED, 2023d). However, in the panel’s view, it is critical that interconnectedness be retained between national and international partners; this can be achieved if Canada is involved in the development and adoption of international standards (Sections 5.4 and 6.2.3) [p. 28 in print version and p. 56 in PDF version]

Since Chapter 2 includes commercialization, it makes sense that market size would be included, from Quantum Potential,

2.1.4 Potential Market Size for Quantum Technologies

Several sources (mainly, but not exclusively, consultancy firms) have attempted to estimate the potential market size for different quantum technologies and how they could grow over time (Figure 2.1). However, the panel cautions that these numbers are inherently speculative, represent rough estimates at best, and should be treated with a high degree of skepticism, as it is difficult to predict the market potential of technologies that are still years (or even decades) away from maturity, and for which few practical applications exist at the time such estimates are drawn. Indeed, in the panel’s view, these numbers are likely inaccurate and exemplify quantum hype (Section 4.2.3). They are presented here simply to demonstrate the high level of uncertainty around the size and growth rate of the market for quantum technologies over the next decades. Moreover, the panel believes that focusing on market size may be myopic, as quantum technologies will undoubtedly have significant social and economic impacts across a wide range of areas. Comparing estimates can also be difficult because various sources assess the market sizes for different sets of technologies and categorize quantum technologies in different ways. Additionally, while most estimates are presented in terms of “revenue” (Batra et al., 2021; Bobier et al., 2021; CSIRO, 2022), others are described as “sales” (Doyletech Corporation, 2020), “market potential” (QDNL, 2020), and “estimated market” (McKinsey, 2022); as such, it is unclear whether these estimates are directly comparable. It is also notable that estimates for the same technology from different sources can differ by as much as an order of magnitude, particularly when they are projected further into the future (e.g., 15 to 20 years). However, in all estimates, quantum computing has a much higher potential market value compared to communications and sensing, accounting for between 50% and 80% of the projected quantum technologies market over the next two decades. [p. 56 – 57 in the print version and pp. 56 – 57 in the PDF version]

…

So taking into account that nobody really knows what the market potential is (I very much appreciate the honesty), the expert panel offers a best guess as to what the economic impact might be for Canada, from Quantum Potential,

The economic impacts of quantum technologies in Canada are potentially very large

Modelling by Doyletech (2020) — which was commissioned by the NRC and cited in Canada’s NQS — projects that the total economic impact of quantum technologies in Canada (including indirect and induced effects) could be $138.9 billion by 2045. This would represent roughly 2.7% to 3.3% of the total Canadian economy in 2045, and result in over $42.3 billion in tax revenues. To put these numbers in perspective, Canada’s aerospace sector generated about $28 billion in
economic activity in 2016, representing about 1.3% of the total economy (Doyletech Corporation, 2020). Importantly, however, in the panel’s view, these (and similar) estimates are highly speculative and should be treated with caution given the difficulty of predicting the economic impacts of technologies that are still years (or even decades) away from maturity and for which few practical applications exist (recall Section 2.1.4). Regardless, quantum technologies may present a significant return on investment for Canada. For example, Quantum Delta NL predicts a roughly eight-fold return on quantum technologies for the Dutch economy over the medium term (QDNL, 2020). [p. 38 in print version and p. 66 in PDF version]

…

Most analyses of the economic value of quantum technologies focus on technology developers, not adopters

The potential total market size for quantum technologies has been assessed by several different sources. However, these estimates almost exclusively focus on the market size for suppliers of quantum technology (i.e., developers of quantum computers, sensors, and communications technology) and not on the economic benefits for the adopters or end-users of these technologies. In addition, all available estimates of the economic benefits for adopters of quantum technologies focus entirely on quantum computing, with no estimates of the value created by the adoption of quantum sensors or communications. [p. 40 in print version and p. 68 in PDF version]

…

Chapter 3: Quantum Technology Landscape

This chapter offers a more informed overview of the Canadian ‘quantum scene’ than my admittedly idiosyncratic approach as noted in Part one, from Quantum Potential,,

Early investments and talent development in quantum-based research have given Canada a strong foundation as it experiences the second quantum revolution; however, given its relatively small population and research budget, there is a risk of losing early domestic advantage to China, the United States, and members of the European Union (Dunlop, 2019; ISED, 2022d). In a
report on the development of a national quantum strategy, the evolution of the domestic quantum ecosystem is described as the product of a “relatively neutral Canadian public policy environment,” leadership and philanthropy from private investment, successful individual institutions and investigators, and the ability of start-ups to develop their own markets (Dunlop, 2019). As a result, Canada’s nascent quantum ecosystem has grown into a small, yet interdisciplinary network made up of industry organizations, research centres, and business accelerators and incubators (Dunlop, 2019).

Canada’s quantum technology value chain strongly depends on international partnerships. This, however, is not unique to Canada; several of the necessary materials and components can only be obtained from a handful of foreign suppliers. This chapter will highlight some international dependencies and identify areas of the value chain where Canada may be able to emerge as a global leader. [p. 43 in paper version and p. 71 in PDF version]

…

There’s a little more detail about the ecosystem, from Quantum Potential,,

3.1 Quantum Activity in Canada

Canada’s quantum landscape is composed of a range of organizations and institutions that include universities, start-ups, internationally competitive companies, and industry networks and consortia. While Canada has an active and vibrant research and start-up ecosystem, increasing international competition is beginning to challenge its global position. Likewise, Canadian companies are lagging in metrics related to intellectual property (IP) protection [emphasis mine] ; these could be indicators of future challenges related to commercialization and technology adoption. There may be other issues related to technology adoption stemming from Canada’s localized hubs of expertise, which largely exclude the Atlantic provinces and the territories. However, Canadian organizations have a wide- reaching international network of partnerships and collaborations, which could help them in a variety of ways, from attracting talent to connecting companies with larger future markets. [p. 44 in print version and p. 72 in PDF version]

Assessing your research position using intellectual property as a metric could be considered problematic (more about that in my comments).

For anyone interested in the Canadian quantum scene, this is a very interesting subsection, from Quantum Potential,

Quantum expertise is unevenly distributed across Canada

Section 3.1.1 showed that quantum-based research originates in several hubs across Canada; British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec have all developed thriving quantum technology ecosystems, and these clusters are somewhat differentiated by speciality [sic]. However, this also means that certain regions are not as well represented. For example, Atlantic Canada and the territories are largely absent from the National Quantum Strategy (NQS), specifically the Regional Development section of the Commercialization pillar (see ISED, 2023d). The ramifications of an uneven distribution of quantum expertise are discussed in Chapter 4.

National and regional quantum technology research hubs in Canada attempt to facilitate collaboration among researchers, industry partners, and government stakeholders to advance the development and commercialization of quantum technologies. Ideally, these hubs and networks can help develop a talent pipeline that connects students to industry and supports Canada’s innovation ecosystem. Some of the programs discussed below are geographically centred hubs, while others seek to connect academic, industrial, and government entities across
the country.

British Columbia has a highly collaborative quantum community, with universities conducting research across various fields, such as quantum computing, communications, and materials (S. Simmons, personal communication, 2023). The Stewart Blusson Quantum Matter Institute at the
University of British Columbia (UBC, n.d.) and Simon Fraser University’s 4D Labs (SFU, n.d.) provide testing, fabrication, and prototyping facilities for researchers and companies developing quantum materials, circuits, and devices. Quantum BC, a joint initiative led by three leading research universities, “aims to stimulate and enrich collaborative efforts across research, training and innovation in quantum computing” (Quantum BC, 2022). Through the NSERC CREATE Quantum Computing program, Quantum BC offers a unique training experience for graduate students in quantum computing hardware and software, in part via internships with industry partners (Quantum BC, n.d.). British Columbia also has a growing ecosystem of quantum technology companies and start-ups. Nine quantum companies collectively employ more than 500 employees, receive more than $270 million in funding and hold more than 404 patents (Mantha & Turner, 2023). Notable companies include D-Wave, 1QBit, Good Chemistry [a 1QBit spin-off company was acquired by SandboxAQ on January 9, 2024; SandboxAQ is an Alphabet {formerly known as Google} spin-off company] , and Photonic Inc. Quantum Algorithms Institute (QAI) connects academia to industry, and supports the growth of the province’s quantum computing ecosystem (Wong, 2021). QAI supports practical initiatives to increase quantum awareness, grow the quantum workforce, and educate new customers about quantum solutions to solve business challenges.

Alberta has a 20-year history in quantum research, development, and commercialization, with major quantum advances and investments totalling over $30 million (CFI, 2023). This is enhanced by synergistic areas of strength, such as nanotechnology and AI. The University of Alberta, University of Calgary, and University of Lethbridge have collaborated since 2015 via Quantum Alberta, a consortium of academic and industry experts who joined together to elevate
quantum science and technology R&D and commercialization in Alberta (Quantum Alberta, 2022). Spin-off companies, such as Quantized Technologies Inc., Quantum Silicon Inc., and Zero Point Cryogenics, are part of a nascent, growing quantum start-up culture. In 2022, Quantum City — a partnership among the University of Calgary, the Government of Alberta, and leading technology company Mphasis — was established with over $100 million in private and public investments (UofC, 2022). Quantum City is a global quantum knowledge translation hub, bringing together researchers, quantum companies, and early adopters of quantum technologies and services. It is investing in 15 new University of Calgary quantum faculty positions, as well as training and upskilling programs (e.g., master’s in quantum computing, NSERC CREATE in Innovators for Quantum Computing Deployment), in collaboration with the Université de Sherbrooke, a quantum fabrication and characterization facility (qLab), and an incubation and ideas collision hub (qHub) (B.C. Sanders, personal communication, 2023).

In Ontario, an ecosystem consisting of Waterloo and the Quantum Valley Hub was established in 2001. It brings together more than a dozen organizations and start-ups working in fundamental physics, experimental implementation, device engineering, and venture capital (TQT, n.d.-a, n.d.-b), including the Perimeter Institute, a non-profit organization focused on foundational physics; the Institute for Quantum Computing, which aims to develop quantum information science and technology; the Quantum-Nano Fabrication and Characterization Facility, which specializes in building quantum devices; a Canada First Research Excellence Fund project with a focus on quantum health; the Quantum Valley Ideas Lab; and Quantum Valley Investments, a $100 million venture capital fund (R. Laflamme, personal communication, 2023). Some of the start-ups include ISARA Corporation, High Q Technologies, Single Quantum, Universal Quantum Devices, Aegis Quantum, and Quantum Benchmark. Quantum Valley was built as a public-private partnership (PPP) and has benefited from ongoing, strong support from the governments of Canada and Ontario, philanthropy (most significantly from Mike and Ophelia Lazaridis and Douglas Fregin), and the University of Waterloo. More than $1 billion has been invested to date. The ecosystem takes advantage of Waterloo’s strong innovation base and entrepreneurial culture, existing talent,
unique R&D infrastructure, and strong network of collaborators, forming a community with a shared vision of a quantum future.

In Quebec, the Innovation Zone in Quantum Science and Technological Applications is formed around the Université de Sherbrooke and represents investments of over $435 million in the region, of which $131 million is public funding (C. Sarra-Bournet, personal communication, 2023). Companies such as 1QBit, Bell, IBM, PASQAL, and Eidos-Sherbrooke have also committed to investments of $270 million over five years. Of note, the Quebec-IBM Discovery Accelerator program is involved with the installation of a 127-qubit IBM quantum computer in collaboration with Plateforme d’Innovation Numérique et Quantique (PINQ2) at its IBM Bromont facility (PINQ2, 2023). Sherbrooke is also the home of Canadian university spin-offs such as Nord Quantique, SBQuantum, and Qubic Technologies. The R&D infrastructure capabilities of the hub are provided by the Integrated Innovation Chain (IIC), led by Institut quantique (IQ), the Interdisciplinary Institute for Technological Innovation (3IT), and the MiQro Innovation Collaborative Centre (C2MI), which acts as a bridge between university research and the development of new products transferred to industry (Quebec Quantique, n.d.; Université de Sherbrooke, n.d.). Since 2010, the IIC has benefited from more than $1 billion in investments, with more than 60% coming from industrial partners. This ecosystem is part of a semiconductors corridor that was recently part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the United States and Canada related to the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act (Platt, 2023) (Box 5.5).[pp. 54 -57 in print version and pp. 82 – 85 in PDF version]

As noted earlier, I noticed that Xanadu Quantum Technologies, which started life as a University of Toronto startup, is not mentioned in the Ontario subsection. Moving on.

International dependencies are noted further on in Chapter 3, from Quantum Potential,

3.2.1 International Dependencies

Most quantum technologies cannot currently be bought off the shelf, and the list of parts and materials needed to build them could include hundreds of different vendors. Moreover, many of these components may only be available from one or two vendors globally, and specialized equipment could, in some cases, be back-ordered by a year or more (INDU, 2022b). Although quantum computers are some of the most complicated quantum technologies, communications and sensing devices may also experience similar supply chain challenges and international dependencies. … [p. 68 in the print version and p. 96 in the PDF version]

…

Geopolitical events can also affect access to materials and devices (INDU, 2022b). For example, starting in 2022, war in Ukraine significantly reduced the availability of crucial materials such as neon gas and high-purity Silicon-28, while much of the world currently depends on Taiwan for certain types of semiconductors and microcontrollers. Assessing international supply chain dependencies is not trivial. In some cases, the provenance of certain components or materials may not be apparent. For example, electronics, rare Earth magnets, and other raw materials may be sourced from foreign vendors, but where these vendors source the materials may not be known (Parker et al., 2022).[p. 70 in the print version and p. 98 in the PDF version]

Yes, I think we in Canada have become increasingly aware of our vulnerabilities vis à vis supply chains and how we get and provide access to critical materials.

Chapter 4: Ethical, Social, and Institutional Challenges

Surprising no one, it seems implementation of quantum technologies could make things worse and/or it could make things better, from Quantum Potential,

… The review of challenges presented in this chapter is the first part of a broader analysis of the multifaceted ethical, legal, social, and policy implications of quantum technologies, also known as Quantum ELSPI (Kop, n.d.) This chapter focuses on social and ethical ssues within the framework of Quantum ELSPI. Chapter 5 reviews the interconnected legal and policy implications. [p. 81 in paper version and p. 107 in PDF version]

For anyone who’s been following ELSPI or ELSI through various new and emerging technologies, this seems like a walk down memory lane, from Quantum Potential,

4.1 Ethical Challenges and Quantum Ethics

Like many other technologies, quantum technologies can have both beneficial and harmful applications. For example, quantum-resistant cryptography (QRC) can enhance individual and collective privacy and security, but the ability of quantum computers to overcome existing cryptography can facilitate mass surveillance and access to confidential information and undermine digital infrastructure essential for healthcare, banking, and public utilities. Quantum technologies can enable scientific breakthroughs in medical research and chemistry, but some
actors can exploit the complexity of underlying quantum phenomena to spread misinformation and undermine public trust in scientific progress. Additionally, disparate access to quantum technologies and the expertise necessary for their adoption can exacerbate the digital divide among different communities, regions, and countries.

Due to the relative novelty of quantum technologies, ethical principles guiding human conduct in the face of both beneficial and harmful applications are only beginning to emerge. Quantum ethics is a new field of applied ethics that focuses on moral behaviour in the domain of quantum technologies (Kop, 2021a). It “calls for humans to act virtuously, abiding by the standards of ethical practice and conduct set by the quantum community, and to make sure these actions have
desirable consequences, with the latter being higher in rank in case it conflicts with the former” (Kop, 2021a).[p. 82 in print version and p. 110 in PDF version]

I don’t see anything new or quantum-specific about the ELSI or ELSPI concerns in that excerpt or in the subsequent table and paragraphs. As for what follows, most of that seems to be focused on the same old problems but given a twist because quantum technologies could provide solutions while creating new problems to such issues as privacy, confidentiality, etc. For example, from Quantum Potential,

Encryption protects two types of personal data: stored data (i.e., data-at-rest) and data that are sent over the internet (i.e., data-in-flight). Some researchers suggest it is relatively easy to create quantum-resistant data-at-rest systems, and many modern encryption systems already address a possible risk of decryption (Hoofnagle & Garfinkel, 2021). Quantum computers will most likely jeopardize data-in-flight that were sent over the internet at some point in the past and captured and archived by non-governmental actors or intelligence agencies (Hoofnagle & Garfinkel, 2021). Although there is no publicly accessible and reliable information on the ongoing interception of data-in-flight, it is reasonable to assume that any message transmitted anywhere in the world might be captured and stored by some person or agency, and then unlocked at some point in the future (Mosca & Munson, n.d.). While this risk is real, it may also be overstated, because conducting cryptanalysis will require access to a powerful quantum computer, as well as time to perform the analysis (Hoofnagle & Garfinkel, 2021). [ p. 84 in print version and p. 112 in PDF version]

In addition to bypassing current encryption, there could be environmental issues, from Quantum Potential,

4.2.2 Environmental Impacts of Quantum Technologies

Low-dimensional materials and nanomaterials (e.g., zero-dimensional semiconductor quantum dots, semiconductor nanowires, carbon nanotubes) hold promise for quantum technologies (Alfieri et al., 2022). Nanomaterials can, among other things, improve the coherence of qubits and the purity and brightness of quantum emitters, serving as conduits for quantum sensing and imaging (Alfieri et al., 2022). They are, however, double-edged swords. The unique properties that make them beneficial for product development, such as their size and high reactivity, also create environmental and safety concerns (NIEHS, 2021). For example, nanotechnology can allow sensors to find the smallest amounts of chemical vapours; however, it is often impossible to detect the level of nanoparticles in the air. This property presents a concern for the health and safety of employees in workplaces that use nanomaterials (NIEHS, 2021). Moreover, the use of nanomaterials by the quantum industry can increase the number of nanoparticles released into the environment.

The main challenges in conducting research on nanoscale materials include determining their quantity, evaluating biological reaction, and measuring the level of exposure and risk (NIEHS, 2022). In 2022, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada published their draft Framework for the Risk Assessment of Manufactured Nanomaterials under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) (ECCC & HC, 2022). The framework provides that
conclusions reached about a substance through the assessment process may differ, depending on its form (e.g., the traditional chemical or nanomaterial form, or variations among different nanoscale forms). Government scientists intend to use a weight-of-evidence approach to decide whether a nanomaterial released in the environment is considered toxic under CEPA (ECCC & HC, 2022). If adopted, the framework may determine how the government will regulate nanomaterials used in quantum technologies, including applicable environmental and human health risk assessments. As of September 2023, the draft framework has not been adopted. [p. 86 in the print version and p. 114 in the PDF version]

Although I’m glad to see awareness of possible environmental impacts, some of this section seems familiar from discussions about nanotechnology and environmental impacts. I have another niggle. For some reason, this report does not distinguish between engineered nanoparticles (which is what the authors are concerned with) from naturally occurring nanoparticles, which we’ve lived with for millennia.

As for this next section, it’s a pretty standard concern where new technologies are concerned, from Quantum Potential,

4.2.3 Exploitation of Misleading Views About Quantum Technologies

Quantum technologies are fundamentally different from other disruptive technologies, such as nanotechnology or AI, due to their perceived ability to operationalize the principles of quantum mechanics [emphasis mine] (Chapter 1). While the proliferation of quantum technologies (and quantum computers’ ability to solve some classically hard problems) has generated interest in the principles of quantum mechanics, specialists — let alone non-specialists — have difficulty understanding and explaining how quantum technologies work and what they might be able to achieve (Aaronson, 2021). For example, a public dialogue exercise conducted in 2017 [emphasis mine] in the United Kingdom found that the public was familiar with the word quantum but had limited understanding of how it applied to quantum technologies (EPSRC, n.d.). Quantum research is dominated by specialized public and private organizations, including defence and intelligence agencies, which contributes to the aura of mystery and secrecy surrounding quantum technologies.

Exploitation of misleading views about quantum technologies can stoke fear and undermine public trust

Some actors can exploit the scientific complexity of quantum mechanics to facilitate the spread and public acceptance of misinformation11 about quantum technologies, which may lead to public controversies. Lessons can be learned from incidents fuelled by misinformation, such as the attacks on 5G towers in the United Kingdom (Parveen & Waterson, 2020), anti-vaccination attitudes, and the attempted bombing of IBM’s nanotechnology facility in Switzerland (WEF, 2022b).

In addition to causing reputational or even physical harm to researchers and organizations working in the area of quantum, misinformation could erode public trust in quantum technologies (WEF, 2022b). In this context, bolstering public trust may require allocating public funds to confirm already-settled research findings. For example, in the European Union, genetically modified (GM) food safety research has received significant funding due to public controversies about
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (Ryan et al., 2020). Between 1982 and 2010, the European Commission spent over €300 million on GMO safety research, leading scientists to conclude that biotechnology was not riskier than commonly used plant breeding technologies (E.C., 2010). [pp. 86 -87 in the paper version and pp. 114 – 115 in the PDF version]

So, the impact of quantum technologies is different because it’s quantum? On the face of it, this seems like circular reasoning. That said, I’m inclined to agree that quantum technologies will likely present different problems than other emerging technologies. Perhaps, we also ought to be considering (or mentioning in this report) the possible impacts from synergies between these technologies.

The mention of violence and extreme responses to emerging technologies points to the thoughtfulness with which this report was compiled.

There is this in Chapter 4 that I want to highlight, from Quantum Potential,

The adage known as Amara’s Law, coined by American researcher and technology
forecaster Roy Amara, states that:

“We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and
underestimate the effect in the long run.” [emphasis and quotation marks mine]

Over the long term, it is exceedingly likely that quantum technologies — and
quantum computing in particular — will be incredibly disruptive and
transformative, impacting society in ways that cannot currently be predicted. … [p. 87 in the print version and p. 117 in the PDF version]

Point well taken. The discussion that follows Amara’s Law is of the harms that could be inflicted by hype, privacy violations, constitutional rights and freedoms, the increasing the divide between haves and have-nots, and what happens to people’s jobs, from Quantum Potential,

Box 4.3 The Port of Los Angeles Logistics Optimization

The Port of Los Angeles is the largest U.S. facility for handling shipborne cargo. An initiative at Pier 300, one of the port’s largest terminals, leveraged D-Wave’s computational power to optimize the port’s logistics (D-Wave, 2022). The Hyper-Optimized Nodal Efficiency (HONE) engine processed data from more than 100,000 different cargo-handling runs across a range of real-world and hypothetical scenarios, in order to identify opportunities for optimization. As a result, the terminal uses nearly 40% fewer of its crane resources for the unloading process, and each of the cranes travels a considerably smaller average distance per day. The cranes have also increased their deliveries by more than 50%, and each truck is spending nearly 10 minutes less receiving the payload at the terminal (D-Wave, 2022). Arguably, a classical program could have been used to optimize logistics; the D-Wave annealing solution was chosen because the project team was familiar with it (QCR, 2022b).

At the same time, the growing use of automation and robotics is a complex issue. It requires considering both the private sector’s desire to increase the efficiency of supply chain management and the impacts of workflow optimization on the workforce. For example, to support the workforce of the Port of Los Angeles, the Government of California funded the Goods Movement Training Campus for truck drivers, mechanics, welders, and others who might require upskilling or re-skilling due to automation, and created professional development opportunities for future hires (Spectrum News 1, 2022). [pp. 93 – 34 in the print version and pp. 121 – 122 in PDF version]

…

They’ve made everything more efficient with D-Wave Systems’s, a Canadian company, computational power, which is noted with a number of statistics and they don’t have any statistics for the number of people affected? Interesting.

The mention of bias and explicability (everything happens in a black box) draws heavily on the experience with artificial intelligence, from Quantum Potential,

Quantum machine learning may exacerbate discrimination or other kinds of unfairness resulting from automated decision-making. Among the reasons existing AI systems generate skewed, inaccurate, or discriminatory results is because available datasets and models make AI biased by design (Robertson et al., 2020; CCA, 2022; Crawford, 2022). Marginalized and racialized people and groups are disproportionately impacted by AI trained on bad data (i.e., missing, incorrect, or
inconsistent data) (Richardson et al., 2019). Researchers found that the use of AI to make hiring decisions discriminated against women (Dastin, 2018) and people with physical and mental disabilities (Fruchterman & Mellea, 2018). AI has perpetuated discrimination against Black people in various contexts, including healthcare (Obermeyer et al., 2019), the criminal justice system (Robertson et al., 2020), and online content moderation (Sap et al., 2019). In Canada, data collection and processing practices often discriminate against Indigenous communities (Robertson et al., 2020) and minimize or disregard Indigenous knowledges and experiences (CCA, 2022). The existing funding models enable select institutions to define the research agenda and extract Indigenous data while downplaying the potential negative impacts of these practices for Indigenous communities (GC, 2019).

A lack of gender and racial diversity in STEM (Section 4.4.2) could also amplify bias in quantum-enabled automated decision-making systems. Lessons can be learned from many applications of AI — including facial recognition, speech recognition, and hiring tools — where a lack of diversity in the AI industry has fed into data selection and technology design processes, resulting in outcomes that are biased against women and minoritized and racialized people (West et al., 2019; Stinson, 2022). [p. 94 in the print version and p. 122 in the PDF version]

…

It seems that in some ways quantum technologies may not be so different from other emerging technologies..

Technology adoption in Canada faces a number of barriers both governmental and corporate. Given that the banking industry is very concentrated (as is the telecommunications industry), this projection of how the big banks will adapt to quantum technology is illuminating, from Quantum Potential,

Canada’s big banks adopt technological innovations implemented elsewhere, provided the risks and benefits are well known Various reports cite the financial sector as one of the key adopters of quantum technologies (Chapter 2). However, as is the case with the telecommunications sector, the state of competition in the financial sector may affect the speed of adoption. On one hand, Canada’s banking system has high concentration levels; the six largest banks, known as the Big Six (Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada, and Toronto Dominion), controlled around 90% of overall banking assets from 1996 to 2015 (McKeown, 2017). On the other hand, unlike the telecommunications sector, there is inconclusive evidence on the state of competition in the financial sector (Bednar et al., 2022), and high concentration levels are not indicative of the degree of competition among incumbent firms or market contestability (CCA, 2009). In a contestable market, firms willing to enter and exit the market do not face prohibitive barriers, and the prospect of nascent competition may encourage innovation by incumbent firms (CCA, 2009).

One study that measured the degree of contestability in the Canadian banking industry concluded that the sector is characterized by monopolistic competition (Allen & Liu, 2007), which disincentivizes so-called visible innovations (e.g., innovations in services) because they can be relatively quickly replicated by competitors, thus minimizing the advantages sought by the first innovator (CCA, 2009). As an alternative, innovation usually targets internal processes (e.g., physical capital and software for ICT [information and communications technology]), which are hidden from competitors and, therefore, harder to reproduce. For example, between 2009 and 2019, Canada’s six largest banks collectively invested $100 billion in technology, substantially improving their in-house cybersecurity. This indicates that Canadian banks may be interested in investing in security-enhancing quantum technologies. However, the banking sector remains relatively risk-averse with respect to technological innovations. Usually, it adopts successful technological innovations implemented elsewhere, provided their risks and benefits are well known (the so-called early follower innovation strategy) (CCA, 2009). [pp. 98 – 99 in the print version and pp. 125 – 127 in the PDF version]

Chapter 4 concludes with some data about problems attracting women into quantum technology fields and with attracting and retaining international talent.

Chapter 5: Legal and regulatory challenges

There doesn’t seem to be much new ground covered but there is some fascinating language in this section on privacy, from Quantum Potential,

According to Dekker and Martin-Bariteau (2022), existing privacy frameworks provide a foundation for assessing whether any particular application of quantum sensing is reasonable “within the context of that technology’s sensing capabilities (i.e., the degree of invasiveness on an individual’s privacy).” For example, the technique of counterfactual ghost imaging (Box 5.2) shows how, from a legal standpoint, the use of a quantum sensing for surveillance is not significantly different from the use of any other surveillance technology. [emphasis mine] This technique allows a third party to collect information about a person without their consent and knowledge. The sensing technique, however, is irrelevant because the reasonable expectation of privacy test remains the same as long as certain factual circumstances are met. Such surveillance practices may be illegal both in the private and public sector contexts (Dekker & Martin-Bariteau, 2022).

Box 5.2 Counterfactual Ghost Imaging

Counterfactuality refers to using quantum effects to examine objects or transmit messages without exchanging matter or energy between the two parties when transferring information (Hance & Rarity, 2021). A single photon can be used to go through an interferometer (a
device merging two or more sources of light to create an interference pattern) and identify an object or its characteristics without a physical interaction with it (LIGO Caltech, n.d.). A method called ghost imaging uses entangled photon pairs to detect obscure objects with significantly better “signal-to-noise ratio while preventing over-illumination” (Zhang et al., 2019). [box ends]

Still, evaluating privacy implications of quantum-based surveillance may present challenges for courts unfamiliar with this sensing technology. Quantum sensing comes with its own ethical considerations, and its application without guidance and oversight can lead to privacy violations. Proactive regulation and ongoing oversight could support the accountable use of quantum sensing by governments, law enforcement, and private actors (Dekker & Martin-Bariteau, 2022). [pp. 106 -107 in print version and pp. 134 – 135 in PDF version]

Counterfactual ghost imaging is a pretty evocative term.

The discussion on privacy mentions an element of Bill C-27 An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, which had escaped me in previous stories here, from Quantum Potential,

Bill C-27 excludes anonymized data from data protection rules

In June 2022, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-27 (An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts) (House of Commons of Canada, 2022a). The Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA) suggested under Bill C-27 establishes separate categories of anonymized and de-identified data. Under the bill, to anonymize “means to irreversibly and permanently modify personal information, in accordance with generally accepted best practices, to ensure that no individual can be identified from the information, whether directly or indirectly, by any means,” whereas to de-identify “means to modify personal information so that an individual cannot be directly identified from it, though a risk of the individual being identified remains” (House of Commons of Canada, 2022a). Bill C-27 kept de-identified data within the regulatory framework but excluded anonymized data [emphasis mine], assuming that they cannot be re-identified (Dekker & Martin-Bariteau, 2022; House of Commons of Canada, 2022a). These separate data categories were introduced partially to offer organizations more flexibility in the processing of anonymized and de-identified information for “internal research, analysis and development purposes” (House of Commons of Canada, 2022a; Gratton et al., 2023). Anonymized data are also exempt from retention limits, and the right of erasure does not apply to them (House of Commons of Canada, 2022a; Scassa, 2022).

Some researchers, however, criticized the proposal to exclude anonymized data from data protection rules, partly because quantum-enabled AI systems may be able to re-identify anonymized data, thereby exacerbating privacy risks (Dekker & Martin-Bariteau, 2022). The proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (part of Bill C-27) aims to partially address this issue by imposing anonymized data governance requirements on private sector organizations, requiring them to “establish measures with respect to (a) the manner in which data is anonymized; and (b) the use or management of anonymized data” (House of Commons of Canada, 2022a). As of September 2023, Bill C-27 has not passed [emphasis mine]. [p. 109 in the print version and p. 137 in the PDF version]

I did not realize that ‘anonymized data’ was being excluded from the bill. Given the quantum computing capabilities described in this report, it seems to be an odd and short-sighted choice on the government’s part.

As of this writing February 19, 2025, the legislation has still not passed. You can see the current status on the LegisInfo.com’s C-27 , 44th Parliament, 1st session Monday, November 22, 2021, to present webpage to confirm.

For the curious, the most complete roundup of information on the bill (posted here) is in a May 1, 2023 posting “Canada, AI regulation, and the second reading of the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022 (Bill C-27).” I have more recent (i.e., from 2024) mentions, which can be found using “bill C-27” as the search term on this blog.

The approach to intellectual property is pretty standard, from Quantum Potential,

Quantum computers and other quantum applications, such as sensing, cryptography, and communications, are eligible for IP protection (Kop, 2021b; Rand & Rand, 2022). IP rights encompass several rights regimes, including patents, copyright, and trade secrets [emphasis mine]. Generally, these regimes aim to promote innovation [emphasis mins] by granting the owners an exclusive right to make public, commercialize, reproduce, and limit distribution of their inventions (McKenna, 2006). IP rights are instrumental in building the quantum sector’s value appropriation strategy because they can prevent, for a period of time, third parties from deriving economic benefits from the inventions or original expressions of IP owners (DOJ & FTC, 2007). [p. 110 in the print version and p. 138 in the PDF version]

I appreciate the use of the verb ‘aim’, which suggests a little caution with regard to the phrase ‘promote innovation’.

Following on the ‘caution’, there are some suggestions that intellectual property such as copyright (which can be applied to quantum technologies) for one was never intended to ‘promote innovation’, from the description for the 2024 book, “Who Owns This Sentence? a History of Copyrights and Wrongs” by David Bellos and Alexandre Montagu (published by W. W. Norton & Company),

Copyright is everywhere. Your smartphone [emphases mine] incorporates thousands of items of intellectual property. Someone owns the reproduction rights to photographs of your dining table. At this very moment, battles are raging over copyright in the output of artificial intelligence programs. Not only books but wallpaper, computer programs, pop songs, cartoon characters, snapshots, and cuddly toys [emphasis mine] are now deemed to be intellectual properties–making copyright a labyrinthine construction of laws with colorful and often baffling rationales covering almost all products of human creativity. It wasn’t always so. Copyright has its roots in eighteenth-century London, where it was first established to limit printers’ control of books [emphases mine] . But a handful of little-noticed changes in the late twentieth century brought about a new enclosure of the cultural commons, concentrating ownership of immaterial goods in very few hands. Copyright’s metastasis can’t be understood without knowing its backstory, a long tangle of high ideals, low greed, opportunism, and word-mangling that allowed poems and novels (and now, even ringtones and databases) to be treated as if they were no different from farms and houses. Principled arguments against copyright arose from the start and nearly abolished it in the nineteenth century. Nonetheless, countless revisions have made copyright ever stronger.

In many ways copyright and other intellectual property regimes have been weaponized by large companies for control of the markets while smaller companies seem to use these tools more as defensive measures, from Quantum Potential,

The exercise of IP rights by a dominant player can make a winner-takes-all scenario [emphasis mine] more likely. For example, Microsoft has used a topological structure to build a quantum computer while many of its competitors have relied on superconductors (Hoofnagle & Garfinkel, 2021). If its approach is more successful, Microsoft could protect the engineering aspects of topological structures by invoking trade secrecy and “by selling its quantum computers as a service rather than as standalone devices [emphasis mine]” (Hoofnagle & Garfinkel, 2021). While this strategy would allow the company to gain a competitive advantage, it could also impede the development of hybrid quantum processors [emphasis mine] that draw on the strengths of technologies developed by different IP owners.

Patents owned by larger firms [emphasis mine] can also discourage follow-on research, as well as product development and commercialization by SMEs, because “the cost of accessing those patents, through either royalties or legal battles, may simply be too high for small firms to sustain” (Gallini & Hollis, 2019). Dense webs “of overlapping intellectual property rights” that impede technology commercialization by SMEs (i.e., patent thickets [emphasis mine]) (Shapiro, 2000) can be found in two technology fields where Canadian innovators have historically enjoyed a relative advantage [emphasis mine]: computers and communications (Gallini & Hollis, 2019). [p. 111 in the print version and p. 139 in the PDF version]

…

IP assets can stimulate the growth of SMEs [emphasis mine; SME is small and medium-sized enterprises] in different stages of development (including start-ups and university spin-offs) (EPO, 2017). Compared to firms that lack IP rights, IP-holding SMEs are more likely to receive higher amounts of financing (since IP can be used as collateral for loans), innovate, realize plans for domestic and international expansion, and experience higher growth (Collette & Santilli, 2019). IP rights, and particularly patents, enable innovators to fend off competitors, protect their businesses from large firms [emphasis mine], and build patent portfolios that facilitate cross-licensing agreements (Gallini & Hollis, 2019). [p. 112 in print version and p. 140 in PDF version]

Back to copyright, from Quantum Potential,

Unlike patents, copyright arises automatically and protects original expressions of ideas, including those contained in software such as “computer source code, visual user interface elements, API [Application Programming Interface] structure, user documentation and product guides” (Bereskin & Parr LLP, n.d.). The functional aspects of software, however, are not subject to copyright
protection (Samuelson, 2017).

Copyright can protect aspects of quantum technology that constitute “literary works” under the Copyright Act (GC, 1985e; Bereskin & Parr LLP, n.d.). For example, in some contexts, the following components of a quantum computer are eligible for copyright protection: “quantum software, the APIs, quantum arithmetic unit (quantum addition, subtraction, multiplication, and exponentiation), runtime assertion and configuration, quantum computing platforms, program paradigm and languages, the Bacon-Shor stabilization code, color codes, and surface codes”
(Kop, 2021b).

These components are eligible for copyright if they meet the criterion of fixation (White, 2013; Dylan, 2019). A work is fixed when it is “expressed to some extent at least in some material form, capable of identification and having a more or less permanent endurance” (Exchequer Court, 1954; Hagen et al., 2022). Fixation is one of the main requirements of copyright because it prevents people from claiming legal protection for thoughts (Schmit, 2013). However, according to Schmit (2013), the material form requirement could be problematic for quantum software because the quantum object code cannot be fixed for “more than a transitory duration due to superposition” that “allows a system of n-qubits to be any or all of 2ⁿ different possibilities simultaneously [original emphasis was an italicized ‘simultaneously’ in the standardized text of the original report]. [p. 113 in the print version and p. 140 in the PDF version]

I’m going to speed this up by skipping through areas where my understanding is poor. That means skipping the rest of Chapter 5, which goes on to include sections on Competition Law, Standards and Standardization, Domestic and Foreign Trade Regulations, and more. I’m also going to skip Chapter 6: Enabling Conditions for Adoption entirely.

Chapter 7: Framework for the Responsible Adoption of Quantum Technologies

I found the reflections from the expert panel to be the most interesting part of Chapter 7, from Quantum Potential,

Quantum technologies are being recognized globally as critical investments, inspiring many countries to commit millions if not billions of dollars to their development. The panel notes that these substantial investments are necessary, as quantum technology research can be slow and expensive, with much of the equipment and raw materials needing to be imported from specific suppliers (some of which are the only option). Canada cannot mine, manufacture, or otherwise create every input along any given quantum product’s supply chain. As such, it is crucial that it cultivate robust and reliable international collaborations to supplement the points of the quantum value chain Canadian companies cannot fulfill, while also providing larger and additional export markets for domestic quantum companies. [p. 171 in the print version and p. 199 in the PDF version]

…

In 2023, Canada published its National Quantum Strategy (NQS). While the NQS is a good starting point for developing a domestic quantum ecosystem, the panel believes promising initiatives remain underfunded, especially compared to jurisdictions that have committed more significant amounts. … The NQS [National Quantum Strategy] largely focuses on supply-side initiatives with less support for stimulating diffusion and adoption. Although there is some spotlight on adopting users and sectors — such as the proposed roadmapping process — jurisdictions leading in the quantum space (e.g., China, United States) employ comprehensive technology adoption strategies for both the public and private sectors.

In the panel’s view, the NQS does not pay sufficient attention to ELSPI [emphasis mine; ethical, legal, social, and policy implications] related to the adoption of quantum technologies. As noted above, some quantum sensors could exacerbate surveillance concerns, and quantum computers could threaten digital encryption and worsen individual and collective discrimination. These capabilities complicate the application, interpretation, and enforcement of Canada’s privacy and data protection laws. In addition, there is the challenge of ensuring equitable and broad access to quantum technologies across Canada as they become available. This vulnerability is aggravated by the fact that big technology companies can exploit their market power to dictate the terms and conditions of access; moreover, the application and enforcement of Canada’s IP and competition law may favour major market players. Finally, because quantum science is conceptually challenging, quantum technologies are likewise difficult to understand and can be shrouded in mystery or overhyped. [p. 172 in the print version and p. 200 in the PDF version]

Strangely (or not), there is no mention among the remedies suggested by the panel for public outreach or raising public awareness of the ‘social’ aspect of ELSPI.

Final comments

I learned a lot from Quantum Potential. Clear prose (always appreciated), good explanations of various quantum technologies (thank you!), and a clear-eyed view of the pitfalls associated with developing emerging technologies in Canada. The examination of the pitfalls (some of which are common to emerging technologies with a special emphasis on quantum technologies) gave this report an extra lift.

For the first time (other than when the query is focused on the issue) since I’ve been reading these things, the report addresses diversity issues, specifically, the lack of diversity. I was particularly impressed with this section in Chapter 4, from Quantum Potential,

There is a lack of diversity in STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics]

The continued lack of diversity in STEM is another reason why skilled personnel are hard to find and why talent is not being used to its full potential. For example, Indigenous people make up less than 2% of all STEM sector employees (Cooper, 2020). Only 4.1% of Indigenous workers have post-secondary education in STEM disciplines compared to 10.4% of non-Indigenous people (Kazmi, 2022). Studies show that minoritized and racialized professors are underrepresented, have lower wages than their white colleagues, and feel that their contributions are undervalued by their peers (Henry et al., 2017). …

Math, computer science, and engineering are dominated by men

When it comes to attracting women researchers to quantum fields in Canada, “there is huge competition for the relatively few female candidates in quantum technologies, but this has not necessarily translated into more women entering relevant programs of study” (ISED, 2022d). … women accounted for 56% of post-secondary enrolment between 2010 and 2019. However, only 38.5% of STEM students were women, with even lower rates in math and computer science (28%) and engineering (22%) (Mahboubi, 2022). … [p. 101 in print version and p. 120 in PDF version]

…

The statistics are very much in line with what I’ve been reading for years about diversity. Like many people, in addition to the notion that diversity is about being more fair, I’ve long believed that mixed teams have better problem solving skills. Then, lightning struck …

Cognitive diversity?

I was looking for proof that diverse teams are stronger when I stumbled across a March 30, 2017 article “Teams Solve Problems Faster When They’re More Cognitively Diverse” by Alison Reynolds and David Lewis for the Harvard Business Review, Note: I have a caveat (warning/caution) that follows,

Looking at the executive teams we work with as consultants and those we teach in the classroom, increased diversity of gender, ethnicity, and age is apparent. Over recent decades the rightful endeavor to achieve a more representative workforce has had an impact. Of course, there is a ways to go, but progress has been made.

Throughout this period, we have run a strategic execution exercise with executive groups focused on managing new, uncertain, and complex situations. The exercise requires the group to formulate and execute a strategy to achieve a specified outcome, against the clock.

Received wisdom is that the more diverse the teams in terms of age, ethnicity, and gender, the more creative and productive they are likely to be [emphasis mine]. But having run the execution exercise around the world more than 100 times over the last 12 years, we have found no correlation between this type of diversity and performance [emphasis mine]. With an average group size of 16, comprising senior executives, MBA students, general managers, scientists, teachers, and teenagers, our observations have been consistent. Some groups have fared exceptionally well and others incredibly badly, irrespective of diversity in gender, ethnicity, and age.

Since there is so much focus on the importance of diversity in problem solving, we were intrigued by these results. If not diversity, what accounted for such variability in performance? We wanted to understand what led some groups to succeed and others to crash and burn. This led us to consider differences that go beyond gender, ethnicity, or age. We began to look more closely at cognitive diversity [emphasis mine].

Cognitive diversity has been defined as differences in perspective or information processing styles. It is not predicted by factors such as gender, ethnicity, or age. Here we are interested in a specific aspect of cognitive diversity: how individuals think about and engage with new, uncertain, and complex situations.

…

These cognitive preferences are established when we are young. They are independent of our education, our culture, and other social conditioning. Two things about cognitive diversity make it particularly easy to overlook.

…

First, it is less visible than, for example, ethnic and gender diversity.

…

The second factor that contributes to cognitive diversity being overlooked is that we create cultural barriers that restrict the degree of cognitive diversity, even when we don’t mean to.

There is a familiar saying: “We recruit in our own image.” This bias doesn’t end with demographic distinctions like race or gender, or with the recruiting process, for that matter. Colleagues gravitate toward the people who think and express themselves in a similar way [emphases mine]. As a result, organizations often end up with like-minded teams. …

If you look for it, cognitive diversity is all around — but people like to fit in, so they are cautious about sticking their necks out [emphasis mine]. When we have a strong, homogenous culture (e.g., an engineering culture, an operational culture, or a relational culture), we stifle the natural cognitive diversity in groups through the pressure to conform.

…

If cognitive diversity is what we need to succeed in dealing with new, uncertain, and complex situations, we need to encourage people to reveal and deploy their different modes of thinking. We need to make it safe to try things multiple ways. This means leaders will have to get much better at building their team’s sense of psychological safety.

There is much talk of authentic leadership, i.e., being yourself. Perhaps it is even more important that leaders focus on enabling others to be themselves.

I’d forgotten (after years as a freelancer and also because I have a tendency to underestimate it) the importance of conformity at work and, most of all, for getting ahead. “Go along to get along,” is an old adage my father shared with me as he prepared me for the world of work. That covers a lot of ground including the notion that you conform to expectations.

The authors’ point about cognitive diversity is well made as I had slipped into the habit of viewing more diversity as an automatic guarantor of more diverse thinking being brought to the table. As I see now that is a bit simplistic.

Next, in a not entirely unrelated topic:

Could arts/humanities/social science practitioners enhance the expert panel?

In a report where the expert panel notes that trying to imagine the impact that quantum technology might have on society in the future is very difficult, no one thinks to call on culture workers, sociologists, philosophers, writers, musicians, visual artists, theatre artists, etc. Really?

Sadly, this is not the first time that the Council of Canadian Academies and one of its expert panels has overlooked the obvious. Here’s what I had to say about a previous expert panel in February 22, 2013 posting,

I was very excited when the forthcoming assessment The State of Canada’s Science Culture was announced in early 2012 (or was it late 2011?). At any rate, much has happened since then including what appears to be some political shenanigans. The assessment was originally requested by the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation. After many, many months the chair of the panel was announced, Arthur Carty, and mentioned here in my Dec. 19, 2012 posting.

…

Could they not have found one visual or performing artist or writer or culture maker to add to this expert panel? One of them might have added a hint of creativity or imagination to this assessment [emphasis mine and added January 6, 2025].  …

As for incorporating other marginalized, be it by race, ethnicity, social class, ability, etc., groups the panel members’ biography pages do not give any hint of whether or not any attempt was made. I hope attempts will be made during the information gathering process and that those attempts will be documented, however briefly, in the forthcoming assessment [Science Culture: Where Canada Stands].

…

Notably, there is a joint programme (art/sci residency, known as the Quantum Studio) between the Stewart Blusson Quantum Matter Institute (Blusson QMI) and Morris and Helen Belkin Gallery (the Belkin), both at UBC (University of British Columbia), in partnership with The Embassy of France in Canada. For the curious, my October 27, 2024 posting provides more detail, scroll down about 25% of the way.

Adding arts/humanities/social science practitioners is not a guarantor of cognitive diversity any more than diversity of race, social class, ethnicity, gender, etc. would be but it certainly can’t hurt and there is precedence for believing that an outsider might come up with something interesting. For example, the Star Trek television series influenced the design of mobile phones. A set designer for a 1960s science fiction television show came up with the basic design for a cell phone? (You can find out more about how Star Trek influenced technology in 2017’s “Treknology: The Science of Star Trek from Tricorders to Warp Drive” by Ethan Siegel.)

Public engagement and intellectual property

It was good to see public engagement/awareness mentioned in the report. Unfortunately, that’s all the topic rated. ti seems that this activity, as is often the case with emerging technologies, will be relegated to the later stages of quantum technology development in Canada.

Taking into account that it’s helpful to know how much progress you’re making, measuring that progress by the number of patents (intellectual property) being filed could be problematic. It’s a little surprising the expert panel, given that they had reservations in other areas, didn’t make note of any with regard to counting patents. After all, is that measuring progress or legal paperwork?

So, how are we doing quantumwise?

If you’re looking for good news, Quantum Potential does offer a bit but I gather in their eagerness to avoid hype and answer the questions as posed, the sponsoring agencies, the expert panel focused largely on problems. (Confession: I too have a tendency to focus on problems.)

Luckily, there’s a January 5, 2023 article (somewhat dated but the most up-to-date I can find) by James Dargan for the Quantum Insider,

Canada is one of the leading countries when it comes to research and the commercial aspects of quantum computing (QC).

…

With several quantum research institutes and labs, including Simmons’ [Photonic inc.’s founder Stephanie Simmons] very own Silicon Quantum Technologies Lab at Simon Fraser University, Canada can also take pride in the research efforts being done in the sector at places like the Université de Sherbrooke — EPIQ, Université de Sherbrooke — Institut quantique, the University of British Columbia — Advanced Materials and Process Engineering Laboratory (AMPEL), the University of British Columbia — Quantum Information Science, the University of British Columbia — Quantum Matter institute, the University of Calgary — Institute for Quantum Science and Technology, the University of Toronto — Centre for Quantum Information and Quantum Control, and finally the University of Waterloo — Institute for Quantum Computing.

Furthermore, it is in the top ten countries worldwide in planned public funding for quantum technology at more than $600 million, a number that is growing but still behind China with $15 billion, the EU with $7.2 billion and the US with $1.3 billion, according to a McKinsey report.

Canada is also the home of the first quantum computing company in existence, D-Wave (see below), and presently the birthplace to more than two dozen quantum computing startups.

…

[article lists 25 Canadian quantum companies]

There you have it, a dose of boosterism.

Where are we going from here?

As the panel noted, there is an international race to develop quantum technology. The UN has declared 2025 as the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology (IYQ; see more about the announcement in an October 3, 2024 posting on the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry [IUPAC] website or in a June 7, 2024 posting on Quantum Insider by Matt Swayne., which reproduces the UN press release),

UNESCO has a dedicated International Year of Quantum Science and Technology (IYQ) website,

What Is IYQ?

Recognizing the importance of quantum science and the need for wider awareness of its past and future impact, dozens of national scientific societies gathered together to support marking 100 years of quantum mechanics with a U.N.-declared international year. 

On June 7, 2024, the United Nations proclaimed 2025 as the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology (IYQ). According to the proclamation, this year-long, worldwide initiative will “be observed through activities at all levels aimed at increasing public awareness of the importance of quantum science and applications.”

Anyone, anywhere can participate in IYQ by helping others to learn more about quantum on this centennial occasion, participating in or organizing an IYQ event, or simply taking the time to learn more about quantum science and technology.

I didn’t see any Canadian events listed on the IYQ website in early February 2025 but the situation (as of February 18, 2025) has already changed. Quantum Days 2025 from February 19 – 21, 2025 will take place in Toronto, Ontario. Tickets are already sold out but you can check out the Quantum Days 2025 website to get a sense of the programming. The most accessible Canadian event currently (as of February 19, 2025) on the IYQ website appears to be a May 9, 2025 event billed as Quantum Canada Open Doors on the IYQ website,

Quantum Canada: Open Doors invites Canadians from every province and territory to experience the incredible world of quantum through free, accessible events.

From lab tours and public lectures to hands-on workshops and industry showcases, this one-day event will highlight Canada’s leadership in quantum science and technology. Whether you’re a quantum expert, a curious student, or simply someone eager to learn, there’s something for everyone.

Location

All across Canada

Date

May 3, 2025

Time

8:00 AM

Primary Language(s)

English

Event Entry

Free Entry

Event Link

Fear not

Canada was represented at the International Year’s two day launch February 4, – 5, 2025 in Paris as noted in my January 31, 2025 posting. On day one (February 4, 2025 in the 11:50-12:40 Roundtable Discussion: Pushing the Frontiers of Quantum Science and Technology), there was Stephanie Simmons (Simon Fraser University professor and Founder & Chief Quantum Officer at Photonic, Co-Chair of Canada’s National Quantum Advisory Council).

Also on day one, there was John Donohue, Senior Manager of Scientific Outreach at the Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo in the 14:00-14;50 Panel Discussion: Public Engagement and Education in Quantum Science and Technology.

On day two, Shohini GHOSE, Professor of Physics and Computer Science at Wilfrid Laurier University and Chief Technology Officer, Quantum Algorithms Institute participated in the 09:45-10:45 Panel Discussion: Ethics of Quantum Technologies.

The popular imagination and quantum physics

Quantum physics doesn’t occupy the popular imagination in quite the way that artificial intelligence does—not yet. However, it as a bit of startling to come across this quote in a Vanity Fair article (February 2025 issue, p. 77 in the paper version),

“Scott was like a quantum entangled particle,” said another friend, He had both an inferiority and superiority complex.”

Most of the people consulted for the article (Atlas Shrugged by Dirk Smillie), were a part of the financial services community of which Scott Minerd was a significant player prior to his death at the age of 63.

it’s not a community where I’d expect to hear a ‘quantum’ analogy. Also, I believe the speaker was trying to reference quantum superposition, not entanglement. However, for someone who finds the way new and emerging technologies become known to the public, the speaker’s probable profession and error are both fascinating, especially as it appears in a high end magazine article about extreme wealth during the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology.

Back to the regular programme

Given the focus on security issues in the report, there’s an intriguing announcement in this December 26, 2024 posting by Matt Swayne for The Quantum Insider,

Insider Brief

Proposals must align with national defense priorities while incorporating Indigenous knowledge and demonstrating socio-economic benefits for Canada’s broader innovation ecosystem.

Canada’s IDEaS program is offering $19 million in grants to develop cutting-edge technologies that support NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)] modernization and enhance North American defense capabilities [emphasis mine].

The program targets early-stage innovations in quantum computing [emphasis mine], autonomous systems, Arctic mobility, counter-drone measures, and sustainable energy solutions.

…

Quantum Technologies

The contest encourages advances in quantum computing, including logical quantum bits (qubits) for fault-tolerant systems, quantum algorithms for optimization and anomaly detection, and quantum repeaters for secure networking. These innovations have the potential to transform how data is processed and secured in defense systems.

…

You can find out more on the Government of Canada’s IDEaS NORAD Modernization S&T contest webpage.

As for the question I asked in the subhead, “Where are we going from here?,” I don’t think anybody knows. If you have some insights please do share them in the comments.