DATA CENTRE POLITICS

Building up the backbone of Canada’s AI ambitions

In the 1800’s, many North Americans rued the money being invested in railways. The politics were fraught. The projects moved fast. They cost far too much. And some didn’t understand just how much those rails would improve lives and the economy.

Fast forward a couple hundred years, and we now know perfectly well just how instrumental those arteries were to the West’s progress, our trade, and human connection. Despite early tensions, all that steel and board formed the backbone of North America (4,700 km in Canada and 3,070 km in the U.S.).

Today, we’re seeing loud, albeit largely toothless, protests against data centers. (Not long after the Canadian government’s fresh AI strategy was dropped.)

It appears that AI has a bit of a communications problem.

While data center debates are healthy, any significant infrastructure delays could hold the country back to the point where it becomes beholden to more powerful nations.

“From our perspective, sovereignty is about two things: control and choice,” says Phil Harris, CEO of Cerio. Establishing control and choice allows a nation to select its strategic AI partnerships and set sustainable AI policy, explains Seychelle Cushing, SFU Partnerships Hub Executive Director.

The country also wants to avoid having more powerful nations capture the value created on Canadian soil, which is not uncommon.

“The risk is not that Canada, Canadians, stop inventing,” explains Craig Tavares of Buzz HPC. The risk is that “others commercialize and control what Canadians invent.”

“Canada’s AI future will not necessarily be secured by models alone. It will be secured by the infrastructure that trains them. The servers that serve them, and then protects them.” — Craig Tavares

AI data centres as critical infrastructure

Proponents like Tavares present sovereign AI compute as a strategic national asset on par with railroads, energy grids, roads, and hospitals.

Indeed, from medical treatments to drug discovery, AI is being primed to support some of humanity’s most pressing challenges. Joy Johnson, SFU President and Vice-Chancellor, considers AI and its infrastructure to be the next critical step in addressing many foundational challenges:

“We’re not going to get out of this problem by just continuing to do what we’re doing. We need something to… move us forward in a different way.”

A hybrid model: getting the energy mix just right

AI infrastructure may only be as good as our energy infrastructure. But to remain globally competitive, Cushing suggests we should approach AI infrastructure as a network of integrated systems and partnerships spanning infrastructure, energy, business, and innovation.

Tavares and Diego Mandelbaum, CEO of Corix, echo this as well. They argue that a hybrid approach to resources like nuclear, solar, wind, natural gas, and electricity will be key. However, Mandelbaum also notes that “it’s really hard to do that from a pure private sector perspective.”

“I think we’ve got to be pragmatic and get away from the sort of ideological sustainability lens…” — Mandelbaum

According to Mandelbaum, greater connectivity between provinces could help expand both Canada’s AI infrastructure and energy grid.

There is no single solution, says Tavares, a common belief among pragmatic sustainability proponents: “whether it’s nuclear plus gas plus solar and wind…”

“If we look at what we have today, we have some of the cheapest, greenest, most reliable power in the world… nuclear needs to play a big role going forward…” — Mandelbaum

“There is a real misunderstanding around how [energy] grids work,” says Jason Reichl, COO of Bell AI Fabric. He believes that many don’t understand the energy mix required for major infrastructure, especially the limitations of intermittent renewables like solar and wind.

“You started to see that in the grid issues that Spain is having, and California is having, and Germany is having,” Reichl says, outlining how a reduction in nuclear reactors contributed to grid instability and to the temporary need to burn coal in Europe. He believes that our AI power requirements could help push our nuclear ambitions forward more quickly:

“I think the only real prospect of fixing [broken grids] is nuclear. And that’s definitely one of the things that I think these [AI infrastructure] projects can help with… justification for people to move there faster.” — Jason Reichl

Mandelbaum argues that Canada might benefit from following in the footsteps of parts of Scandinavia or the Netherlands in its heat reuse requirements: “... the government said [to Meta] if you want to go build a 200‑megawatt data center, you’ve got to be able to take that waste product of heat and reuse it.”

With so many power options and cooler weather, much of Canada presents an almost ideal option for data center infrastructure. While concerns about data centre water usage are proliferating, Canada holds a unique advantage: the country’s notoriously cold weather provides a “natural cooling effect,” says Tavares.

“I believe that no amount of environmental assessment is going to have the people with the pitchforks not protesting. So I think there’s a big, big job we have to do in communications and education. But I don’t think that the answer is more environmental assessment or more red tape.” — Mandelbaum

Communication breakdown: why people are panicking

Despite the opportunities AI presents, people remain concerned about water use, power sources, and jobs, as evidenced by anti-data-centre protests popping up in Vancouver and Hamilton.

However, Canada’s cold weather does give it a distinct sustainability advantage. Mandebaum and Nancy Ross, Queen’s University Research VP, agree that people still don’t understand how AI will benefit them, or the innovation it enables.

“...folks don’t necessarily see themselves benefiting from AI directly, immediately, and they get worried…” — Nancy Ross

Part of public concern appears to stem from economic insecurities and other social priorities. Despite this, AI-led transformation could also provide some solutions, depending on how it’s implemented.

“Some of the biggest critical issues that we’re facing in Canada are… the state of our health care system, the state of our infrastructure, etc. We’re not going to get out of this problem by just continuing to do what we’re doing…” — Joy Johnson

Reichl suggests that there is a growing gap between Canadian aspirations and the economic reality if we get left behind and don’t deploy AI and infrastructure effectively: “People don’t care about the environment when they don’t have jobs….”

Is economic growth the key to unity?

Social cohesion is being tested on a number of fronts, as well documented, and Phil Harris stresses the importance of addressing it economically. Harris ties AI infrastructure, well-managed technology, and economic growth to the avoidance of social breakdown.

“Go back to the Treaty of Rome after the Second World War. That was because they recognized that, as Europe came back together, if we didn’t have that social cohesion through economic growth, our social cohesion would be fractured without that economic growth. That we would lead ourselves back into another world war.” — Phil Harris

Mind the bureaucracy gap

It’s increasingly clear that governments have an immense role to play in establishing sovereign AI, including the underlying energy infrastructure. Of course, any bureaucratic system is lengthy and often does not keep pace with technological change.

“We have too many guardrails,” explained Mandelbaum, “there is more red tape doing business in Canada than anywhere else I’ve done business.” He acknowledges that the industry will have to simultaneously lean on the government to support the country’s AI transition, while doing so efficiently.

Canada’s AI building blocks are all there.

Its ability to train AI talent and generate cutting-edge research is well known and commendable. And its ambition is clear, says Tavares.

“The barrier is that AI infrastructure requires everything to move together: it’s power, capital, fibre, procurement policy and talent.” Tavares adds that “infrastructure often moves in years… that’s the gap that Canada has to close.”

“For every five Canadian startups, three go to the US in some way or another. One survives, maybe, and the others don’t… And that’s because of the lack of VC bedrock funding in this country, which we need.” — Phil Harris

One way around bureaucracy could be to stimulate stronger private-sector and VC capital investment, taking a page out of the Palo Alto playbook, “where you can’t trip over 10 feet without falling into a venture capital company that is funding a lot of infrastructure development right now,” describes Phil Harris.

“We don’t really have that same venture capital mindset in Canada…. that will come from tax incentives. That will come from other forms of government willing to allow venture capital to come in and fund a lot of this work. Because we need more Canadian companies.” — Phil Harris

Indeed, at the time of writing, the province of Alberta and Meta announced a $13 billion AI data centre project in Canada, the largest of its kind outside of the U.S. The project is slated to generate thousands of jobs and includes an adjacent natural gas facility to power the data centre. The project is slated to use a closed-loop or dry-cooling setup.

A TORRENT OF TALENT

A recent TD Economics report confirms that Canadian brain drain is very real. But, as many in the tech industry know, it’s worse than that.

The roots of Canadian brain drain run deep.

Canada boasts a long history of educating homegrown talent, churning out leading research, and attracting highly skilled immigrants. As a result, the country has one of the most educated populations on the planet and a higher-than-expected capacity for research and innovation.

But Canada’s inability to retain many of its most ambitious citizens does not reflect those strengths.

A TD Economics report released in May of 2026 calls this a “silent” brain drain. But as many in the tech industry already know, that drain can be pretty loud and torrential.

Speaking at Toronto Tech Week 2026, Uber Co-founder Andrew MacDonald explains how big the brain drain problem has become.

“I think we have a bigger problem today… the most highly contributing members of society are leaving. It’s not just doctors, it’s capital. It’s entrepreneurs. It’s trained senior executive talent. It’s people who just want to like build the Canadian dream, but take that to America.”

That drain siphons off our most skilled contributors — and most fruitful tax base:

1. Workers: like engineers, doctors, and nurses

2. Entrepreneurs: builders, from AI to IT

3. Businesses: which create growth and jobs

This is a systemic problem and appears to range from the cultural (risk aversion and tall poppy syndrome) to the structural (high personal and corporate taxes).

As a result, in some ways, Canada has become a feeder system for the U.S. innovation economy. Canadian founders and researchers go on to create immense value and generate high-paying jobs elsewhere. That production translates into significant tax revenue paid by the corporations, employees, and founders.

It begs the question: Imagine if even a fraction of those ventures remained anchored in Canada?

Culture clash: The ‘tall poppy’ problem

Could our brain drain problem have some roots in our culture?

‘Tall poppy syndrome’ is roughly defined as the practice of throttling or sidelining people with ambition. That marginalization is considered by many to be more common across the former British colonies:

“In Europe and Australia, there is something called the Tall Poppy Syndrome: People like to cut the tall poppies. They don’t want you to succeed, and they cut you down — especially people from your own social class.” — TV Producer Mark Burnett

The U.S., in contrast, was seeded with an Ayn Rand-like individualism. We see this reflected in how the U.S. ecosystem attracts ventures, capital, talent, and more lucrative positions.

A knock-on effect of Canada’s notorious risk aversion is that it makes life harder for young people wanting to move into the middle class. Now, tales of opportunity to the south have piqued the interest of many young Canadians. This is no surprise. Grads are struggling to find work in their specialty, and even in ‘survivor’ jobs are often out of reach.

Revealing that sentiment, a 2025 Ipsos survey found that a whopping 43% of Canadians aged 18-34 would vote for Canada to become part of the U.S., followed by 33% aged 35-54 and 17% aged 55+.

Those sentiments were based heavily on financial security.

Three faces of Canadian brain drain

1. Talent gets pruned

For a smaller country, Canada has done an impressive job of generating globally competitive talent, from STEM to the arts. But it also loses them at higher rates.

Canada has become a veritable training ground for high-potential individuals who ultimately become assets for the U.S. economy. But this problem is worse than traditional brain drain metrics suggest.

A May 2026 TD Economics report, ‘Canada’s Silent Brain Drain’, found that the country’s productivity challenges are being magnified by poor retention of top talent. While Canada has strong education and research outcomes, our commercialization, business R&D, tech adoption, and company-scaling potential remain low.

The loss of our top talent extends to immigrants in Canada as well. TD Economics found that those with more education were more likely to leave Canada: doctorates at 34%, master’s at 32%, and bachelor’s at 24%.

“The industrial revolution of our time is happening now, and the forefront is extremely concentrated in one place, and that is San Francisco. Our best people and our best technologies all go to labs and companies. If we invented the future here in Toronto, it slipped away.” — Alex Danco, Andreessen Horowitz Editor-at-Large

Better Dwelling reports that Canadians and permanent residents are leaving at a rate never seen in 74 years of tracking (based on Statistics Canada data).

STEM professionals in particular tend to move to the U.S. most often, partly because it is easier to immigrate with a STEM degree than with a degree in another discipline. Those from highly ranked universities are more likely to leave, especially within the first 5 years after graduation.

TD Economics reports that the highest-performing Waterloo students are most likely to leave, doing so at roughly twice the rate of bottom performers. Meanwhile, the U.S. remains “highly selective of the labour it attracts from Canada, absorbing its upper tail.”

That migration is not just permanent; there is also a drain of temporary high-performing workers. This factor is not included in many brain-drain metrics, yet it significantly worsens the problem.

“If you are a young, ambitious person, the obvious thing to do is to go to San Francisco. If you are a founder looking for money and signal and people and proximity, the obvious thing to do is to go to San Francisco.” — Alex Danco, Andreessen Horowitz Editor-at-Large

Why talent is leaving

While top graduates in Canada may earn fairly well by Canadian standards, others are leaving for better compensation, equity, and upward mobility — all of which are significantly higher in the U.S.

Median pre-tax tech wages are ~46% higher in the States (TMU, 2023), and taxes can be 30-40% lower.

High-skill exits reduce productivity here at home, limit entrepreneurship, and lead to knowledge loss. Productivity is one of the most important factors in building the middle class, reducing poverty, and improving living standards. This suggests that brain drain could be part of why Canada’s standards have been in decline for years.

The result is a runaway feedback loop that decreases upward mobility, shrinks our middle class, and makes life harder for everyone left in Canada.

“I think when you have people leaving because they feel like we’ve lost the plot a little bit here. Not just in the domain of tech. — Uber Co-founder Andrew MacDonald

2. Entrepreneurs and capital flee

The Canadian dream heads south as builders flee to greener pastures.

Beyond its individual workers, Canada is also losing the entrepreneurs and founders that drive innovation and scaling.

These discussions have been percolating in the tech community for years, but notable leaders and industry groups like Build Canada are pushing for change.

Canada currently lags behind in business R&D and tech adoption, scaling, and commercialization. The tax environment is also not particularly friendly.

High personal tax rates begin at relatively low thresholds (~C$218k federal top bracket, adjusted), and business taxes are fairly complex. This all places a focus on planning systems rather than scaling a business.

Ultimately, builders are incentivized in multiple ways to move to the States.

Canada's top marginal tax rates exceed 50% in places like Ontario (53.53%), Quebec (53.3%), and BC (53.5%). Compare that with Florida and Texas, which max out at a flat 37% federal rate. Even high-tax U.S. jurisdictions like California (~50.3%) and NYC (~52%) have far higher income thresholds before the top rate applies. While a Canadian hits the 53%+ ceiling at around $260,000 CAD (~$190,000 USD) in BC, an American must earn between $1 million and $25 million USD to trigger those equivalent 50%+ rates.

Canada’s shrinking middle class is also reflected in the business world. Canada relies heavily on small businesses for employment (47% of jobs vs. 33% in the U.S.), while medium and large firms employ far fewer people than in the U.S. This is partly due to less available capital, regulatory burdens when scaling, and smaller markets and revenue.

As a result, ambitious entrepreneurs and capital flow south where deeper VC markets, larger addressable markets, equity-heavy compensation, and clearer growth paths exist.

3. Corporations pack up and head south

People, builders, operations: the brain drain trifecta emerges when a corporation leaves.

It naturally follows that many Canadian-founded firms would choose to scale in the U.S., given access to larger markets and more favourable tax regimes and regulatory frameworks.

When companies relocate even part of their operations, stock market indexing, and/or headquarters, or choose to scale up stateside, this can reduce the number of roles in Canada, dampen industry growth, and reduce the tax base.

For instance, in January 2026, GFL Environmental (North America's fourth-largest waste management giant with a $21-billion market cap) announced it would relocate its headquarters from Ontario to Florida, citing market access, market indexing, and the ability to attract highly skilled talent stateside. That was largely a structural move. While GFL has left its footprint in Canada, the movement of executives siphons off decision-making and wealth-creation opportunities, which reduces the company’s capacity to scale in Canada.

If companies can’t reach critical mass at home, Canada risks becoming a “branch-plant nation”, something that AI Minister Evan Solomon acknowledges. He admits: “We’ve got to do better.”

“The fundamental problem isn’t attracting talent but anchoring it: Canada produces strong research and education outcomes but underperforms on commercialization, business R&D, tech adoption, and scaling firms, which lowers the domestic returns to skill and entrepreneurship versus U.S. innovation clusters.” — TD Economics

The movement of businesses and builders compounds the traditional brain drain of individuals. Without a healthy middle tier of SMEs, talent is no longer anchored in Canada, and entrepreneurs have fewer skilled people to build with.

Complex and hefty corporate taxes also reward staying small or lead to a focus on tax-planning and deferral strategies rather than scaling and investing in growth.

Creating a winning culture

While businesses and people are currently forced to build small, earn small, or look for greener pastures, there are ways Canada can break out of its feeder-system cycle of educating talent, incubating ideas, and then waving goodbye as companies, jobs, and tax revenues flee.

Perhaps Calgary can provide a template. With lower operating costs and higher salaries, startups enjoy a more convivial environment in which to scale. Its technology sector, for instance, has enjoyed a 40% annual growth rate in tech roles since 2021, which is four times the Canadian average of 9.6%. According to CBRE, between 2021 and 2024, Calgary’s tech workforce expanded by over 61% (CBRE). As Brad Parry, CEO and President of Calgary Economic Development, explains in the National Post, Calgary has “no sales tax, no land transfer tax, and one of the lowest corporate tax rates in all of North America.”

Similarly, the TD report suggests that provinces should embrace incentives that encourage companies to scale rather than relocate to avoid taxes. Addressing tax structures (like personal tax thresholds and business tax simplification) could help build up the missing corporate middle.

Canada’s culture of risk aversion may be difficult to change, but it can start at the top. The first step is to acknowledge the problem. The next step? Creating a healthy ecosystem for SMEs and tall poppies.

“The good news is I do feel like momentum is starting to shift ot that front… but I think brain drain understates the problem that we’ve been having for the last decade.” — Uber Co-founder Andrew MacDonald

AI GROWS UP & QUANTUM COMES KNOCKING

As AI dominates our headlines and PowerPoints, evangelizing the next tech revolution, another industrial shift is quietly knocking at the door.

All the while, AI panic is setting in. Datacenter construction is inspiring controversy. Governance is rapidly shifting. Job displacement is being debated in the public square.

Behind that AI din, quantum computing is being quietly engineered to tackle a different set of problems for applications like supercharged logistics, drug discovery, and financial planning. While AI is engineered to integrate, remix, and leverage data, quantum is built to change what computers can achieve.

When paired together, organizations like McKinsey agree that AI-quantum will redefine entire industries and societies. Thanks to these generous market projections, the money is flowing.

In 2025, the global AI market was estimated at US$390.9 billion and is projected to reach US$3.5 trillion by 2033 (at a whopping CAGR of 30.6%). The global quantum computing market still remains relatively small, at around US$1.4 billion in 2024, but it’s forecasted to reach US$4.2 billion. Some projections put it at US$19.44 billion by 2035.

That’s modest by comparison, but the direction is clear.

Big names like Toronto-based Xanadu are already helping to position Canada as a serious global contender. But new specialized Canadian startups like QuantumCore are beginning to engineer niche applications that will serve as the infrastructure backbone for the quantum commercialization.

“We are acting with urgency because of the rapid acceleration of the large quantum computing programs as seen by the recent Q-Day announcements out of Google Quantum AI Labs.”

— Dr. Christopher Wilson, QuantumCore

The rise of quantum manufacturing

As ‘Big Q’ players like Google build the next big flagship quantum processors, ‘Little Q’ builders are beginning to make their mark.

Startups like Canada’s QuantumCore are positioning themselves as necessary quantum infrastructure: cryogenic electronics, control hardware, and signal‑chain components.

Once the quantum race shifts from lab demos to factory-scale deployment, Little Q is set to become the backbone of the industry.

On the Big Q end of the spectrum, Canada’s Xanadu is eyeing plans to build its first quantum data centre in Toronto, with a large quantum facility targeted for around 2029-30. Founded within Toronto’s research ecosystem by Christian Weedbrook, the company has evolved into a full‑stack photonic quantum player, operating cloud‑accessible processors. It recently went public via a SPAC deal valued at ~US$3.6 billion.

To date, Canada isn’t exporting IP abroad (as is often the case). And there is a long tail of demand for specialized optical modules, cryogenic systems, control electronics, and fabrication capacity. Those are precisely the niches where Little Q companies can thrive.

QuantumCore: Move fast and make things

Production means progress, and QuantumCore is quickly positioning itself as an industrial backbone.

Spun out of the University of Waterloo’s Institute for Quantum Computing, QuantumCore is emerging as a fast-moving Little Q operator. The company has pulled in about $10.7 million CAD in funding within its first months.

If that sounds like a hardware manufacturer that’s ready to scale more than a seed‑stage startup, you’d be right. QuantumCore is on a mission to rapidly become a dedicated hardware partner to the global quantum sector.

In April 2026, QuantumCore completed a reverse takeover and began trading on the Canadian Securities Exchange (QNCR). That gave public investors quick access to quantum infrastructure momentum. As of mid June 2026, QuantumCore’s market capitalization sits around $54 million, trading well above its listing value.

Their rapid moves indicate a healthy investor appetite for quantum supply chain players that support large‑scale quantum computers.

“It’s a necessary product for quantum computing companies that are just a few years away from launching computers with thousands of qubits.”

Manufacturing to scale: The future belongs to the industrious

Because quantum scaling is so difficult, the industry’s progress will likely hinge on manufacturing.

Nature Electronics notes that practical superconducting systems may need “a million or more physical qubits” and that each qubit currently requires its own control line. That makes scaling an engineering nightmare.

Quantum machinations also generate a lot of heat, which is mitigated with cryogenics (yes, that same cryogenics so popular in science fiction). So, manufacturing begins with refrigerators that cool processors to around 10–20 millikelvin (roughly 0.01–0.02 degrees above absolute zero).

The quantum cryogenics market was worth US$490M in 2025, and it’s growing 11.7% a year. Beyond cryogenics, the supply chain also includes superconducting components, precision fabrication elements, and control electronics.

Canada’s vertically integrated quantum ecosystem and the beginnings of Big Q

Canada’s flagship Big Q pioneer, Xanadu, has maintained its Toronto headquarters for roughly a decade, and plans to build its immense quantum data center in 2029 or 2030. That’s right down the road from Waterloo, and indicative of a Waterloo-Toronto quantum pipeline taking further form.

That connection has the potential to build a vertically integrated supply chain that promotes further collaboration and manufacturing across research, education, manufacturing, commerce, and markets.

“Growing the company in the Waterloo ecosystem is crucial because of the big pool of local technical experts, in quantum and other engineering disciplines, access to specialized production resources and the region’s big industrial manufacturing base.”

Canada can now boast more than 100 quantum companies, ranking second globally for quantum SMEs and startups. That ecosystem employs roughly 4,000 people, which is about 5% of the world’s quantum talent (while Canada accounts for only 0.5% of the global population).

Many of those quantum companies are closely linked to universities.

Funding the quantum wave

With strong academic roots and government support, the quantum industry is primed for growth. Indeed, Canada has been building a strong domestic IP base for decades.

While many Canadian deep‑tech rounds still lean heavily on U.S. capital, QuantumCore is bucking that trend with a recent infusion from Canaccord. The company raised $10.7 million CAD in less than a year from multiple sources, structured primarily out of Canada.

In the global quantum sphere, the U.S. is seeing massive investment from Big Tech (Google, IBM, Microsoft) and defence funding. China, the EU, and others are also investing heavily in national quantum strategies.

• U.S. National Quantum Initiative: >US$1.2B initially, with $5B in follow-on spending

• Europe’s Quantum Flaship: US$1.16B

• China National Quantum Lab: US$10B

Commercialization

Now that capital is shifting from research to commercialization and infrastructure, we could soon expect to see enterprise deployment. By 2035, based on recent analysis, McKinsey estimates that quantum computing can generate value in the trillions (USD):

• Energy, materials (chemicals and metals): $550B - $1.1T

• Financial services: $400-600B

• Travel, transport, logistics: $200-500B

• Pharmaceuticals and medical products: $80-400B

McKinsey’s Quantum Monitor also highlights early applications such as logistics route optimization, chemical and molecular simulation, financial risk modelling, and investment portfolio optimization.

Building mode: Quantum jobs and the industrial upside

The debate about AI and jobs is already heating up. Leaders of the AI revolution point to mass job displacement one moment, and mass job creation the next. (We can probably expect to see both scenarios play out to some degree.)

What happens when you couple AI role encroachment with quantum advancements?

Despite recent pushback by activists, quantum, AI, and their data centers offer a welcome outlet for a growing pool of underused technical talent.

Projected data centre roles

Given the declining rates of job availability for recent grads — yes, even in STEM — this presents an especially welcome opportunity: from manufacturing technicians, cryogenics specialists, and hardware engineers, to data center operators and supply chain and logistics roles.

Each data center can provide roughly 30-100 high-paying roles across facilities, engineering, security, and admin.

• Pre-AI data centre: 65-100 permanent jobs per 100MW

• AI‑era hyperscale data centre: 33–52 permanent jobs per 100 MW

The global data centre workforce is expected to grow from roughly 2.3 million in 2025 to over 3.1 million by 2035. That’s an increase of 800,000 jobs over five years.

Projected quantum roles

Recent skills reports estimate global demand for around 250,000 quantum workers by 2030, rising to roughly 840,000 by 2035.

Now that quantum is moving out of the lab, McKinsey and others point to growing demand for roles beyond physicists, including:

• Hardware experts

• Cryogenics technicians

• Data‑centre and cloud operators

• Software engineers

• Systems integrators

The future of the future: The AI-quantum combination that will shake the world

Given the obvious integration of brains (AI) and power (quantum), it wouldn’t be surprising if we soon think of AI and quantum as a technological amalgam: AI as the software layer and quantum as the physical layer.

“... connecting the two could create impact that is larger than the sum of the two.”

— Michael Bogobowickz, Partner, McKinsey & Company

Where AI helps accelerate quantum development (design, simulation, error correction), quantum computing will be able to rapidly enhance AI (optimization, materials discovery, complex modelling). The power-ful combo will also be able to accelerate everything AI touches. Beyond disease diagnosis and treatment, it also creates challenges such as extreme cybersecurity concerns.

Although public discourse has largely been distracted by global AI ambitions, Google’s Quantum AI are targeting commercial‑grade systems by 2029-30 for Google (around the same time as Xanadu’s planned data centre).

First-movers like QuantumCore, which have already begun building infrastructure, will be the cogs in the machine that make this convergence possible.

“Superconducting quantum computing is one of the biggest sectors in terms of industrial development, and there is a lot of Canadian experience and appetite to fund ventures with these startup risk profiles.”

Quantum’s first movers

As quantum goes to market, scalability and industrial layers become real opportunities. This is precisely where companies like QuantumCore become integral to the quantum supply chain.

The time to build is now, with the risk being that countries or ecosystems that delay may miss the opportunity. Hence, QuantumCore’s rapid commercial advancement.

“These companies have raised a lot of capital to build computers, and we want to help them get their quantum processors to the next level.”

Recent analysis spotlights the U.S., China, the EU, Japan, and Canada as the five dominant quantum nations. That analysis, unsurprisingly, also flags the U.S. as the leader in private funding (44% share), research quality, and commercialization.

The quantum future belongs to the industrious

From aerospace to the internet, innovation and invention always require specialized builders who are innovators in their own right.

When it comes to the quantum sector, Canada already achieves more than its small size would suggest. As it has before, the nation’s tech sector has the many tools required to corner the transition from quantum research to manufacturing.

Scaling quantum and bringing it to market will clearly require deep innovation in industry and manufacturing — a part of the chain that Canada could corner.

The foundations of this were laid by research and scientific breakthroughs. Now, Little Q companies are helping to lay the foundation that others will build on.

QuantumCore is emblematic of that potential: quiet, deep-research-based, infrastructure-focused, and increasingly essential to the broader market.

The joke that launched a thousand ships

What does ‘sovereignty’ mean to a fairly small nation like Canada? Perhaps strong borders, secure citizens, robust defence capabilities, autonomy, and money in the bank?

Like most things, it’s debatable. What isn’t debatable is that the country is rekindling its desire to shore up sovereignty, particularly in defence and global partnerships.

Speaking at Toronto Tech Week, Douglas Soltys, Editor in Chief of Betakit, suggested that Trump’s infamous “51st state” wisecrack may have been a turning point for Canada.

In early 2025, Trump’s running gag quickly fanned the embers of anti-U.S. sentiment, contributing to a shift in Canada’s national trajectory: from the heated rivalry of the 2025 Four Nations and a campaign about sharp elbows, to an evolving defence approach.

How much truth is in a joke? Trump’s jab still weighs heavily on Canadians’ collective psyche, possibly influencing economic choices, including defence-tech spending. Of course, Canada’s defence and aerospace industries were already extensive and innovative, with crown jewels like MDA and Bombardier, as well as fiery upstarts like Nordspace.

Meanwhile, “the West is seriously, seriously outgunned en masse in the era of modern warfare,” said Kath Intson, CEO and Co-founder of Sentinel R&D, to a Toronto Tech Week audience. “Iran is producing about 60,000 [military drones] per year. Russia has a goal of making around a million,” she says, “When we look at NATO and Israel combined, we make about 20,000 a year.”

Sentinel Announces Joint Venture with Ukraine’s Airlogix

That’s a glaring gap. And there appear to be others as well, including long procurement timelines and barriers for Canadian companies.

The Canadian government seems eager to address these issues with procurement updates and increased defence spending. The country’s recently announced Defence Industrial Strategy outlined $180 billion in procurement and $290 billion in capital investment in Canadian firms over the next decade. Their goal is to increase the proportion of contracts awarded to Canadian firms to 70% and boost investment in federal defence-related R&D by 85%.

AI and quantum join the ‘defence tech’ ranks

If defence is a core requirement of sovereignty, then defence tech can be a superpower. From communications and intelligence to hardware manufacturing and, now, AI and quantum.

“We just released our most recent [AI] model open source,” Cohere co-founder Nick Frosst explained at Toronto Tech Week, “because I think that that pushes it into the direction of sovereignty enabling for people, for companies, for countries.”

This comment comes a couple of months after Canada announced plans to support ‘sovereign AI’ data centres. The concept of Sovereign AI is often applied to corporations that need to protect their data moats, operations, and customers. It allows systems to be deployed without locking into one vendor, maintaining autonomy over system operations and adaptation. In the case of defence, the ability to control and adapt systems quickly and securely can be mission-critical.

Advanced AI is also being applied across defence tech offerings, from drone-based AI and intelligence analysis to cyberwarfare. Quantum capabilities are also poised to enter the fray.

Christian Weedbrook, founder and CEO of the recently public Xanadu, sees quantum computing as the next big technological leap and inherently dual-use, thereby benefiting from state-driven support: “... the U.S. government and other governments around the world have really injected a lot of money into the development of a large-scale quantum computer.”

A shocking reality: Canada’s ~16-year procurement cycle

If defence tech is a core component of sovereignty, but the average procurement cycle takes over 16 years, is true sovereignty possible?

“We note that the average procurement cycle is 16 and a half years,” said Mina Mitry of Kepler Communications. “That’s beyond the lifespan of any company starting to ever care about government as a user....” By the time the public sector is ready to buy, the startup ecosystem that built the solution has often moved on to another problem.

Eliot Pence of Dominion Dynamics also argues for the rapid prioritization of Canadian companies. “We are now at an inflection point,” he says. “What good looks to me is privileging explicitly Canadian companies…and doing it very quickly. I’m talking week cycles, day cycles, hour cycles.”

In an effort to improve defence procurement, the federal government has established the Defence Investment Agency and the Defence Industrial Strategy to reduce red tape and prioritize domestic manufacturing. The aim is to position the government as a ‘first customer.’ This way, sovereignty-enabling technologies are not pushed toward faster markets and foreign buyers.

The procurement system may require a philosophical shift, not only a procedural one.

As Co-founder and CEO of Build Canada, Lucy Hargreaves noted, the previous model was to “spec out exactly what they wanted in a great amount of detail, and companies would bid for that...” It’s an approach that assumes the state knows the solution before the market does. That rigid process often can’t keep up with the pace of innovation.

Pence suggests that co-development could be essential. He describes a 90-day trial during which a product went through ~200 dot updates and four fundamental refactors: “I would not have known what they wanted unless I had co-developed [with] them...”

Although collaborating more closely with emerging companies could be beneficial, that practice increases the risk that a government becomes responsible for picking tech winners and losers.

Funding woes force Canadian companies out

The early funding gap is notorious in Canada.

As is our reliance on U.S. capital. Roughly 65% of VC capital invested in Canadian startups comes from foreign sources, and mostly from the U.S.

That often compels companies to move stateside, leading to another phenomenon: Canadian companies must prove themselves elsewhere first, then come home.

As Mitry describes: “We started the business, we raised capital from the U.S., we sell to the U.S. as our first customer. We go sell to Europe as our second customer. And we come back to Canada and say, okay, now we’re a qualified entity.”

Pence outlines a procurement and policy environment that historically favoured non‑Canadian firms, forcing Canadian companies to rely on foreign primes/markets: “We took a long time to buy things. And we, generally speaking, privileged, frankly, not Canadian companies.”

It’s now fairly common knowledge that Canadian companies often have to move stateside to take off.

Xanadu’s Weedbrook echoes this problem, explaining why the company decided to work with DARPA in the U.S. “As a startup and entrepreneur,” he says, it’s imperative that they try to “get some of that money....”

If money is limited at home, why not work with a close ally? Weedbrook adds that the Canadian government has established the Canadian Quantum Champions program to help keep Canadian IP and support quantum companies here at home. Related plans could include quantum datacenters, anchored by Canadian talent.

Canada’s international corporate outflow could be viewed as an extreme form of brain drain. Talent, capital, and IP are all more likely to accumulate elsewhere first. In terms of sovereignty, that outflow presents a vulnerability.

AI Minister Evan Solomon acknowledged that he wants companies investing in Canadian talent, “but we don’t just want to be a branch plant nation.” Speaking to the Tech Week audience, he says he wants innovators to stay on home soil, admitting, “We’ve got to do better.”

This challenge largely comes down to investment. According to Elliot Pence, pension plans could play a decisive role in scaling sovereign technologies: “...we should tell the pension funds to invest in Canadian companies. That’s what successful countries do.”

Indeed, countries like Norway are often much more intentional about directing domestic capital toward strategic sectors.

Could Canadian risk aversion be holding it back?

The “fail fast” mantra is common in the tech industry, but not so much in the policy world. As Mitry put it, “Oftentimes, there’s just a risk aversion. If I [spend] a million dollars with you, and it doesn’t work out well… that’s compromised my next promotion.”

“That mentality really has to shift,” he adds. Currently, decision-makers need “air cover or policy air cover.”

That is the crux of the issue. A paradigm shift may require institutional permission to take measured risks and then scale what works.

Building Canadian sovereignty in sync

Canadian sovereignty may look a bit different from that of the bigger players, due to its smaller size and constrained economy. That process could involve more collaboration and international integration than one might typically expect.

As a nation located next to the biggest market and military on the planet (while maintaining relationships with other world powers), the opportunities to engage and build are there for the willing.

Despite obvious struggles, it appears that exploration into Canada becoming a robust first customer has begun — a giant leap toward moving beyond sovereignty as a slogan.

Will AI take our jobs? Will it even matter in an ‘age of abundance’?

As economies sputter, industries shed jobs, and AI tensions rise, the world stares down an AI industrial revolution: What will happen to young workers in an already brutal job market?

There are many variables at play here, so I examined a few pieces of this puzzle for the publication Sitka Media (which is new, nonpartisan, and entirely reader-funded).

New jobs are no doubt being created by AI, and deadly diseases will surely be cured. Lots of excellent stuff. But the technological transition could be rough on people. Especially among young people who are already living through Sisyphean times.

The Canadian government recently laid out its AI strategy, AI for All, which focuses on pillars like technological and sector growth, as well as worker training.

The problem, of course, is that things could get messy real fast. Hundreds of thousands of young Canadians are already out of work, autonomy is eroding jobs, and the economy is… not so hot.

Plenty more to read in the article, with interesting takes from folks at BCIT, Future Skills Centre, and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute ↴

Full Article →

Waterloo researchers work to bring bone reconstruction into the future

To say that bone grafting is a daunting procedure would be an understatement.

It’s challenging even for top surgeons. And incredibly distressing for patients. The aftermath of these procedures can be just as intense, including months of physical rehabilitation, rejected implants, and infections.

Meanwhile, demand for bone grafts and orthopedic surgery rapidly rises.

People are living longer across the Western world, leading to more age-related conditions like arthritis and fractures. As governments seek ways to serve those rapidly aging populations, solving the challenges of skeletal procedures will become even more critical.

To reduce the risk of complications and improve patient quality of life, University of Waterloo researchers have developed a new method for creating customized bone material.

The solution is a 3D-printable biopolymer nanocomposite that mimics real bone — a material that could eventually become real bone over time.

Yes, that sounds like something straight out of Star Trek, and marks a giant leap toward more personalized skeletal repair.

“With this technology, we can achieve the patient-specific geometry needed to reconstruct bone defects with greater success.”

— Dr. Thomas Willett, Lead Researcher & Professor, Systems Design Engineering

The big idea: 3D printed bespoke bone repair that’s less costly in the long term

For bone grafting, the current surgical toolkit is pretty limited.

When presented with a serious bone injury, surgeons use estimates to determine the bone parameters for the grafting procedure, requesting donor bone segments that roughly fit the patient’s anatomy.

Unfortunately, rejection of donor bone isn’t uncommon. Current methods can also include titanium bone implants, which are strong, but don’t fully integrate with living tissue.

Here’s why the new 3D-printing method provides a lot of hope:

• Featuring bone-like strength and composition, the material is engineered with nanoparticles that mimic natural bone minerals.

• Harnessing 3D printing, the material can be shaped precisely to match the patient’s unique skeletal geometry.

• The material used is biocompatible, so bone cells don’t just tolerate the material, they thrive on it.

• The researchers’ ultimate vision is to enable bio-resorption, so the implant is replaced over time by the patient’s own growing bone.

“We’ve created a material that is strong, 3D-printable and compatible with a potential to become new bone tissue.”

— Dr. Thomas Willett

Early Research with Promising Results

Published in the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, the study revealed that the new nanocomposite outperforms traditional materials when it comes to bone cell behaviour. They adhere, grow, and function as expected, which is key for any implant that is meant to integrate into living tissue and not be treated like a foreign object.

“The goal is for this material to reduce a patient’s need for repeated operations after undergoing bone reconstruction surgery.”

— Elizabeth Diederichs, PhD Candidate, University of Waterloo

Imagine being able to walk into a hospital, get scanned, and walk out with a custom-printed graft tailored to your exact injury. That’s the level of personalization this new approach could one day support.

If scaled, the new biopolymer nanocomposite could:

• Reduce the risk of implant rejection

• Lower post-surgical infection rates

• Eliminate the need for metal supports

• Reduce hospital stays and long-term complications

• Replace donated bone entirely

Following this early success, the material will now need to clear regulatory hurdles, while clinical trials and funding are next on the researchers’ agenda.

“Any material implanted in the body elicits a response. Our tests show that the biological response of bone cells to our biopolymer nanocomposite outperforms traditional methods. They’re adhering, proliferating and retaining their behaviours, which is very exciting.”

— Dr. Maud Gorbet, Research Collaborator

Global perspectives: patient-centric treatment

The Waterloo team’s work reflects a growing push for healthcare that adapts to the patient, and not the other way around.

As people live longer, the demand for orthopedic surgeries and bone grafts keeps rising, due to age-related conditions like osteoporosis, arthritis, and fracture complications.

• By 2030, nearly 1 in 4 Canadians will be over the age of 65 (Statistics Canada).

• The global population aged 60+ is projected to double by 2050, reaching 2.1 billion people (UN World Population Ageing Report).

• Age-related bone loss (osteoporosis) affects over 200 million people worldwide, leading to 8.9 million fractures annually (IOF).

• As a result of these global trends, the bone grafts and substitutes market is projected to reach US$4.6 billion by 2027, up from $3.2 billion in 2022 (Market Research Future).

The current standards — donor bones and titanium implants or donor bones — aren’t just biologically challenging, they’re also costly and resource-intensive. With millions of procedures performed each year, the potential for a more personalized, regenerative approach is not only more humane and practical but also more economical.

• Over 2 million bone graft procedures are performed annually worldwide (Orthopedic Network News).

• Tissue banks face rising demand and limited donor supply, and custom-matching grafts are often logistically challenging.

• Up to 20% of orthopedic implants may require revision within 10 years, largely due to fit issues, infections, or rejection (Journal of Orthopedic Surgery and Research).

Future in focus: scaling regeneration

If successful, this biopolymer breakthrough won’t just transform orthopedic surgery. It could also create a methodological template for personalized, regenerative treatments across the body.

As 3D printing becomes more scalable, these innovations could eventually reach conflict zones, remote rural clinics, and less-resourced health systems.

For now, the Waterloo researchers remain focused on advancing the material’s strength and regulatory readiness.

Building a gold standard for sustainable mining

Mining is not a pretty process. We’ve all seen the sweeping scars on Earth’s surface and read about the toxic ponds and disrupted ecosystems. But mining is a modern reality, and one that supports livelihoods worldwide. In Canada alone, the mining industry employs hundreds of thousands of people.

Concerned scientists are working to ensure that mining remains an increasingly sustainable industry that minimizes its environmental impact.

Canada is helping to lead that charge, thanks to researchers like Tyler Ciufo, who help support the industry with deep geologic knowledge and a sustainable ethos.

Ciufo holds a Master of Science in Earth Sciences from the University of Waterloo and works as an exploration geologist at Alamos Gold, which operates mines worldwide, including in northern Ontario.

Ciufo recently described how his commitment to the environment drives his work.

“It needs to be done, but there are ways to do it responsibly. We need to have a solid reclamation plan and actively minimize our impact. I think about this on a daily basis.”

Tyler Ciufo, Exploration Geologist

Every day, we interact with technology that requires mined minerals like gold, copper, and lithium: from computers and smartphones to solar panels and MRI machines. Minerals like these help keep countries like Canada in business.

Due to our unique geography and location, we rely on natural resources to drive our economy and build a solid foundation for citizens. In 2023, the Canadian mining industry directly employed 430,000 people (in mining, processing, and manufacturing) and another 263,000 indirectly, for a total of 693,000 people.

Balancing economics and environment

Mining is essential, but we know it can come with a heavy cost.

Extracting gold, for instance, typically requires moving massive amounts of rock and soil, which can lead to habitat loss, high water consumption, and chemical contamination from byproducts like cyanide and mercury (if not managed carefully).

Outside of Canada, regulations and sustainable practices are often far less rigorous or nonexistent.

Mining operations worldwide have contributed to deforestation, tailings dam failures, and water pollution, particularly in regions without regulation. From greenhouse gases to mercury emissions that cause worker illness, enormous challenges lie ahead for the global gold mining industry.

It’s therefore no wonder that the need for responsible practices continues to grow, with more than 3,000 tonnes of gold mined annually worldwide. And demand remains high.

“I realized you can work in industry and still bring an environmental and sustainability mindset to what you do… you have to.”

Canada’s approach to sustainable mining: continuously building responsibility

Following the Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) framework, Canada has adopted sustainability as a core value driver of its mining industry. And although challenges remain, Canada is now home to some of the world’s most advanced mining companies, academic researchers, and ESG efforts.

With precise geochemical analysis and advanced reclamation plans, geologists like Tyler Ciufo are helping the industry find ways to strike a balance between economic necessity and environmental responsibility.

Their goal is to help minimize the mining footprint from the outset, while supporting regulatory requirements:

Environmental & Impact Assessments

Before any gold mining project can move forward, it must undergo rigorous environmental and impact assessments per federal and provincial laws. Researchers analyze potential impacts on water, wildlife, air quality, and local communities. Assessments also require public input, including consultation with Indigenous communities. The aim is to make sure that traditional knowledge and land use are considered from the start.

Reclamation Mandates

By law, mining companies are required to present detailed reclamation plans and provide financial guarantees to ensure the restoration of mine sites upon project completion. This involves returning land to its original state or repurposing it for new uses like wildlife habitats or community recreation. Reclamation tasks can range from recontouring the land and replacing topsoil to replanting native vegetation and monitoring the site’s recovery over time.

Tailings Management

Management of mine tailings (waste materials) is one of the most critical aspects of responsible mining. To minimize spill and contamination risks, operators build out advanced monitoring systems and storage facilities. Industry standards, like the Mining Association of Canada’s Tailings Guide, set detailed expectations for safety and environmental protection. With newer technologies like dry-stack tailings and continuous real-time monitoring, risks can be reduced even further.

Water Stewardship

Because water is a critical mining resource, its usage is thoroughly monitored and reported. Water is often recycled and used on-site using advanced treatment technologies like membrane filtration (nano filtration and reverse osmosis). Any treated water released into the environment is subject to strict quality standards to protect local watersheds.

Transparency & Reporting

Regulators require regular reports on environmental performance, many of which are publicly available. Those reports include data on water usage, greenhouse gas emissions, tailings management, and eventual reclamation efforts. Many companies also opt to participate in voluntary initiatives like the TSM.

“TSM requires member companies to annually assess their performance against six protocols focusing on three core areas: Communities and People; Environmental Stewardship; and Energy Efficiency.”

Global perspectives: gold mining by the numbers

In 2022, Canada produced approximately 220 tonnes of gold, making it the world’s fifth-largest gold producer. As of 2023, Canadian mining assets were valued at nearly $337 billion.

Worldwide, gold production reached almost 3,100 tonnes in 2022, with the top producers being China, Russia, Australia, and Canada.

Canadian gold is often labelled ‘conflict-free’ because it’s sourced under robust environmental and ethical guidelines. By contrast, many countries do not enforce strict sustainability standards, and many global operations are linked to environmental degradation and human rights issues.

As a resource-reliant economy with talented researchers, Canada has a unique capacity to develop, improve, and share sustainable mining practices globally. The Canadian mining industry might serve as a model for responsible mining practices worldwide, particularly in developing nations.

“The mining sector is a cornerstone of the northern economy and is a significant customer of territorial and Indigenous businesses across sectors including communications, energy and transportation infrastructure, and commercial services.”

— Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency

Preserving marine ecosystems and livelihoods in Canada’s fishing industry

Hundreds of kilometres from Canada’s startup hubs, a sustainable tech company is rising from the waters of Halifax, in the heart of Canada’s fishing community.

Cofounded by Halifax locals Aaron Stevenson and Ross Arsenault in 2017, Ashored is charting new fishing territory with fishing gear solutions that maximize yields while protecting ecosystems.

The company’s flagship technology is built to minimize fishing gear entanglements and losses, which have long threatened marine life in Canada and abroad.

“In 2017, 17 endangered North Atlantic Right Whales died off our coasts from entanglements in fishing gear and ship strikes. The problem threatened the industry with more than $2B worth of annual exports at stake. It was a problem that struck at the very heart of the region.”

— Aaron Stevenson, Ashored CEO & Cofounder

That heavy loss, and the resulting toll on the industry, signaled an urgent need for innovative solutions to protect marine life and the livelihoods that rely on local fishing.

The global fishing industry’s environmental impact is infamous, from overfishing and bycatch to habitat degradation. According to NOAA Fisheries, maritime activity continues to have a severe effect on the North Atlantic right whale population of only ~360 individuals (and fewer than 70 females of reproductive age).

Fishing also contributes to our global plastic pollution problem:

• 46% to 86% of plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch originates from offshore fishing and aquaculture

• 640,000 to 1 million tonnes of fishing gear is lost or discarded in the ocean every year, making up 46% of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch

• 10-20% of global marine plastic pollution is ghost fishing gear

“Healthy oceans are essential for healthy lives… Living here, the oceans are very much part of who we are. It is our culture, our heritage, and, for many, our livelihood and our future.”

Building deeper intelligence: Ashored’s smart buoy system

Marine life usually gets into trouble near the water’s surface, where most fishing gear is found. Ashored’s system keeps all fishing gear (cages, buoys, and ropes) safely on the seabed until needed by fishers at the surface.

The system also creates a digital map of the gear on the seafloor, so surface buoys aren’t required. By minimizing gear loss, Ashored also helps reduce ocean plastics and ghost fishing, where lost or abandoned fishing gear continues to catch marine life.

“Everything is controlled by a deckbox from the vessel, along with Ashored’s gear marking and retrieval software, developed in-house.”

Ashored’s system, designed with input from fishing teams, is built to be trap agnostic to promote long-term sustainability and compatibility with a fisher’s existing crab and lobster gear.

Here’s how it works:

• When needed, the gear is released with an acoustic trigger, and the buoys, rope, and cage lift to the surface.

• Everything is managed with a deck box on the vessel, which is integrated into Ashored’s proprietary software.

• System sensors collect data like temperature and gear location.

• Real-time tracking helps fishing teams quickly locate traps, particularly in bad weather, reducing the likelihood of creating marine debris.

• Smart tags on the buoys enable GPS and IoT capabilities so gear can be tracked gear accurately, reducing the time and fuel spent searching for lost equipment.

“Direct feedback from fishermen is very valuable to every aspect of our design and innovation process...Ashored has designed the systems to integrate as smoothly as possible into current fishing practices...”

An early success story: keeping Cape Breton crabbers in business

The Ashored system is already helping fishing teams navigate regulations while staying profitable.

In early July 2024, North Atlantic Right Whale protection measures took effect, leading to temporary fishing closures in several zones off the Cape Breton coast. Fishers were required to remove all traps within 48 hours, but the teams equipped with Ashored’s Rope-On-Command system were able to continue fishing and meet their quotas.

That option can make an immense difference for a fishing community. For example, a moderate snow crab catch of ~1,000 pounds a day at a conservative price of $5 per pound could gross ~$5,000 a day for one fishing team.

“We collaborate with fishery associations and others to ensure that the technology we develop and deliver is not only effective today, but also prepares them for the market of tomorrow.”

Ashored’s biggest challenges: underwater acoustics and the regulatory landscape

Harsh marine environments pose unique challenges, from dealing with underwater noise interference to ensuring durability against deep-sea pressures.

• Underwater Noise: Differentiating between acoustic commands and background noise required advanced noise rejection techniques.

• Durability and Reliability: Ensuring the release mechanism’s functionality under high-pressure conditions necessitated robust materials and coatings.

• Balancing Design Factors: Optimizing cage weight, release mechanism strength, and buoyancy was critical for visibility and reliability.

“Beyond Canadian borders, the team has worked closely with agencies like [NOAA] and the US Coast Guard to understand and comply with the regulatory requirements for deploying our technology in US waters.”

Regulatory and environmental pressures

The regulatory landscape can vary wildly across regions, both domestically and internationally. Navigating those regulatory landscapes requires long-term engagement with federal and state agencies to remain compliance.

Ashored collaborates with organizations like the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership and government agencies like Fisheries and Oceans Canada to develop industry-wide best practices, and also engages closely with First Nations associations, like Millbrook First Nation and Peskotomuhkati First Nation, to integrate traditional ecological knowledge into their operations.

“A future feature we are developing will enable us to tie logged environmental data from our MOBIs with fishing activity.”

Charting a better, sustainable course in fishing technology

From using recyclable fibres to testing the entire system while wearing fishing gloves, the Ashored team is heavily focused on optimizing product materials.

It aims to reach 100% recyclability in future product iterations.

The team will also incorporate environmental data logs, traceability, and automation to enhance its system functionality and expand the scientific research potential.

Innovation, of course, is only as powerful as accessibility allows. So, costing has become key to sustainable fishing. To ensure accessibility for small and medium-sized fisheries, Ashored offers a seasonal leasing model at $100/unit/month to make technology adoption financially feasible.

“Traceability and sustainability will help encourage the adoption of this technology aiding in setting fair market prices for its use. Additionally, we are investigating methods of introducing automated behaviour to our system to ensure harvesters can focus on their job.”

Global perspectives: ghost gear the world over

Every year, an estimated 650,000 animals — whales, dolphins, seals, turtles, and other small cetaceans — are trapped by ghost gear. As much as 1 million tonnes of pollutes oceans worldwide, making ghost gear one of the most severe yet overlooked sources of ocean pollution.

Under UN guidance, countries are increasingly focusing on collaborative solutions to combat this problem. This has placed pressure on fishing communities, which are increasingly seeking sustainable and practical technical solutions to bycatch.

These are sobering challenges. But if Ashored’s mission is any indication, scalable solutions are close on the horizon.

Taking Canada’s Space Ambitions to New Heights

When we talk Canadian innovation, the typical northern gems come to mind: fintech, AI, and healthcare. But Canada’s space industry has long been quietly pushing the country further into orbit.

From the Canadarm to companies like MDA, our space program and industry are renowned and deeply ingrained in international programs, like the International Space Station. Given the global coordination and funding required to run a complex space program, the international nature of space has historically been a strategic advantage, especially for economically constrained nations like Canada.

However, our reliance on other nations can also lead to over-dependence — something that NordSpace is on a mission to change.

The company aims to provide Canada with sovereign access to space across the entire lifecycle, encompassing rockets, satellites, and launches from Canadian soil.

That’s quite the challenge. But NordSpace’s founder is uniquely positioned to undertake that journey. Speaking at Tech Week Toronto, NordSpace founder Rahul Goel described how he decided to build SaaS companies with the ultimate aim of generating funds for his ambitious space mission. (A model that’s reminiscent of Musk’s creation of software companies to later fund his space ambitions.)

From Newfoundland, With Thrust

Headquartered in Toronto, NordSpace is building what could soon become a critical piece of space infrastructure: a spaceport in St. Lawrence, Newfoundland. Nestled near a former fishing town, the spaceport has already built close ties to the local community, hosting regular open houses and student rocketry days.

It’s a strategic response to decades of launch delay.

“Canada is the only G7 country without sovereign access to space. We’re behind two dozen other nations who are already moving fast. That needs to change, and we’re going to be the ones to change it.”

Mirroring its national mission, the company is vertically integrated, focused on building:

• Launch Vehicles: Their Tiger, Tundra, and Titan rockets are on track to make Canadian space history, with Titan’s first launch scheduled for the 2030s, potentially the first wholly Canadian orbital launch ever.

• Propulsion Systems: The Hadfield and Earn engines are 100% Canadian-built and tested on a 50-acre site established in just a few months, thanks to local and in-house manufacturing talent.

• Satellites: The company’s first satellite is scheduled to launch in June 2026, testing electric propulsion, a Canadian-built satellite bus, and AI-driven imaging systems.

Canada’s Brain Drain Is Real. NordSpace Wants to Reverse It.

Canada has one of the best-educated populations on the planet. However, highly educated Canadians often find better opportunities for economic mobility abroad.

To change that, Goel aims to inspire other Canadians to dream big.

“We’re losing our best people. I graduated in aerospace from UofT in 2016, and most of my cohort isn’t in Canada anymore. We’re losing not just talent, but hope. We need to give people something to believe in.”

NordSpace’s team includes engineers and technicians who are friends of Goel’s from high school STEM programs. And when it comes to inspiring others to aim higher, Goel is the person for the job, having lived in his car while bootstrapping SaaS businesses to self-fund his rocket R&D.

The Economic Case for Space Sovereignty

Canada currently spends hundreds of millions of dollars launching satellites through U.S. or international providers.

For instance, Goel described how Ottawa’s Telesat (a would-be sovereign alternative to Starlink) is spending roughly US$1.5 billion (largely taxpayer-funded) to launch from the United States.

“If we had the infrastructure here, that money would stay in Canada. It would power our supply chains, our engineering base, our job creation.”

Goel estimates that NordSpace’s spaceport and manufacturing hub could generate thousands of jobs over the next decade, spanning fabrication, logistics, regulatory compliance, and advanced research.

While countries like New Zealand, Scotland, and Sweden are already punching above their weight in space technology, Canada’s launch capacity has lagged.

NordSpace is betting that with enough grit, private capital, and a little national pride, the country can play catch-up fast.

Reports show the opportunity is already there:

• The global space economy is projected to hit $1.8 trillion by 2035, more than doubling from $630 billion in 2023 (McKinsey).

• Canada’s space sector contributed $2.3 billion to GDP in 2022 and supported 22,000 direct and indirect jobs (CSA Report).

Much More Than Rockets

As the NordSpace team battles sub-zero temperatures and swarms of black flies while designing engines and testing rockets, they’re looking to launch more than rockets.

Goel and the team are building a movement.

From Newfoundland to British Columbia, Goel wants kids from anywhere across Canada to know they can build amazing things.

“There are moments where countries choose to be leaders. This is ours. Let’s not waste it.”

Adaptability is the answer

Toronto Tech Week hit its stride quickly with an incisive keynote from Meghan Chayka, co-founder of Stathletes, a hockey analytics platform that provides insights on player behaviour to NHL teams and development organizations.

Speaking at the Women in Sports & Tech session, the dynamo CEO and data scientist shared lessons from leading in sports tech, including the benefits of continuous upskilling and the glaring funding inequities.

Her core message: Modern tech leadership will demand continuous adaptability from leaders, alongside industry support.

Building support systems for women founders

The tech industry is already a thorny path for women. Being a leader in the sports corner of tech adds even more hurdles, and Chayka addressed the pervasive gender disparity in business and venture funding (particularly in Canada).

“It’s very common knowledge that under 2% of venture capital goes to women...”

Those challenges are echoed at home and abroad:

• Only 13% of Canadian tech firms were founded or co-founded by women, and only 18.4% of Canadian SMEs are majority-owned by women.

• Globally, women-only founding teams received only 2.3% of venture capital in 2024, a minor improvement from 2.1% in 2023. In Canada, the numbers are slightly better in some cities: Montreal at 3.5%, Toronto 3.2%, and Vancouver 2.9%.

• As of 2025, 30.6% of Canadian university students in mathematics, computer, and information sciences were women, a significant decline from 37% in the mid-2000s.

• Women make up 38.6% of the tech workforce but hold only 27% of specialist-level roles.

The solution? Chayka suggests focusing on smart money and building strong investor relationships.

Challenges aside, high performance will drive success and innovation

Chayka draws direct parallels between the discipline of high-performance athletes and high-performance leadership. Here, she notes that the ability to rebound from setbacks and learn from failure is crucial, personally and in professional fields.

Balancing roles without burning out

Chayka sounds like a natural hustler, balancing roles as CEO, mother, and part-time data analyst at the University of Toronto. However, the self-identified Type-A leader isn’t glorifying overwork; instead, she advocates for an intentional audit of personal energy.

“Anything I can delegate that doesn’t need me, I do... I’m ruthless with clearing things off of my docket and then refocusing...That delegation component, especially when you scale, makes you so much more impactful.”

Her advice to women founders is both practical and personal: identify what recharges you, protect your focus, and don’t be afraid to say that beautiful little word: “No.”

“Audit your life. What do you do when you are happy? How do you recharge? Spend more time doing that.”

Future proofing: AI and continuous growth

Discussing emerging technologies, Chayka emphasized how she has seen AI and machine learning become increasingly critical for both operational efficiency and long-term strategic advantage.

She acknowledges that not all founders are technical, but that shouldn’t be a barrier (especially with the rise of vibe coding).

“Even non-technical founders can speed up a lot more with AI.... For me, it was being open to any sort of solution.”

Of course, bringing in pros is one of the quickest ways for a venture to adapt and stay competitive.

To remain ahead of the curve, Chayka emphasized the need to collaborate and leverage technical expertise through hiring, partnerships, and AI tools.

Throughout, Chayka reiterated the need to play a long game: investing in relationships, setting audacious goals, pursuing incremental innovation, and designing products for durability, not just for speed.

“Be really good at the role you’re in. If you are that person people are turning to, you’re going to get promotions. You’re going to get the asks. You get bigger projects.

Generative AI is astounding but stubbornly flawed

Generative AI tools grow more powerful by the day, creating some of the most stunning hyperrealistic imagery we’ve ever seen.

As developers race to drag AI imagery out of the uncanny valley, ‘AI slop’ is slowing AI’s favour in the public square. Part of that sloppiness stems from the assumptions algorithms make when generating content. And those assumptions can lead to pretty egregious biases, like those based on race or gender.

The problem is that, despite the rise of responsible AI across companies and regulatory bodies, our AI tools are trained on the same skewed data the rest of the world uses.

This has not gone unnoticed by broader society. A 2024 CIFAR survey found that 62% of Canadians worry AI will reinforce harmful stereotypes, especially around gender and race.

A 2025 study from the University of Toronto shows just how deeply today’s AI image generators mirror ingrained body biases.

What happens when GenAI is asked to create “a body” image?

The researchers asked three major platforms (Midjourney, DALL-E, and Stable Diffusion) to generate male and female bodies, including athletes.

The results weren’t exactly surprising. What is surprising is that they remain highly biased despite the tech industry’s massive push to reduce AI bias.

Across 300 AI-generated images, the team saw:

1. Hyper-Idealized Bodies

• Athlete photos were built around one stereotypical athletic form:

  • exaggerated, stylized physiques

  • extremely low body fat

  • very high muscular definition

2. Gendered Hyper-Sexualization

• Images of women were all young, model-like, and dressed in revealing clothing

• Images of men were mostly hyper-muscular, often shirtless, and exaggeratedly masculine

3. Lack of Diversity

• Nearly all images depicted young people of European descent

• Most images for “athletes” were of men

• No images depicted visible disabilities

• Racial or age diversity was minimal

The researchers argue that these generated images reflect collective biases baked into the training data, likely scraped from social media, where biases are born.

“When prompted simply for an athlete (no sex specified), 90 per cent of images depicted a male body – revealing an embedded bias toward male representation.”

— Dr. Delaney Thibodeau

AI hasn’t caught up to societal expectations and shifting demographics

Cultural shifts are clearly outpacing emerging tech.

Concern about racial representation, for instance, will likely grow in Western nations as demographics continue shifting. (In 2021, 52.5% of Canadians were of European ancestry, down from 71% in 2001, and 96% in 1971.)

Continued GenAI bias could have ramifications for everything from fitness apps to education:

• Health misinformation: ultra-lean athlete images distort what elite performance actually looks like.

• Barriers to belonging: underrepresented groups (like seniors and disabled people) could risk further invisibility.

• Self-esteem impacts: AI imagery is now part of the same media ecosystem that shapes body image and mental health.

The U of T team stresses the need for human-centred algorithm design — datasets intentionally built to include age, race, disability, gender diversity, and different body types. But they also emphasize the role of everyday users: prompt responsibly, critically evaluate outputs, and avoid presenting AI images as “real” depictions of human bodies.

“A human-centred approach – one that is informed by considerations of factors such as gender, race, disability and age – would be advisable when designing AI algorithms. Otherwise, we continue to perpetuate harmful, inflexible and rigid imagery of what athletes should look like.”

— Dr. Catherine Sabiston

Global perspectives of AI bias: what the world sees

Evidenced by the emergence of stricter regulations like the EU AI Act, AI bias is becoming one of the defining research challenges of the decade.

However, it all comes down to data, and the challenges are mounting:

• Nearly 70% of AI vision models were found to show racial bias in face recognition (Stanford HAI, 2024)

• Women are sexualized 4x more often

• Up to 90% of AI training images originate from the U.S. and Western Europe

• 6% of global AI datasets represent disabled individuals (UNESCO)

Despite obvious challenges, the researchers remain cautiously optimistic. From building inclusive training datasets to promoting transparency and public literacy, there are plenty of support mechanisms available to companies and countries.

As Sabiston notes, more diverse imagery data can change norms if we intentionally generate and share it.

Exploring the 15-minute city

The 15-minute city paradigm is gaining ground (and a little heat) these days.

Despite potential pitfalls, the aim of the 15-minute city (and the sustainable, connected urban life that its champions describe) makes the topic ripe for inquiry.

But what exactly is the 15-minute city?

Naturally, it comes down to proximity. It’s an urban planning strategy for building neighbourhoods where residents can access daily needs within a short walking, biking, or transit distance from their homes.

15-minute city proponents argue that a human-centric approach fosters social bonds and builds community by replacing commutes with time spent with family and friends. And by building grocery stores, schools, healthcare facilities, and green spaces within a 15-minute radius, the need for cars is significantly reduced.

As urban populations boom and megacities expand, challenges related to urbanization and social inequality loom. The 15-minute city model appears to offer an intuitive solution, and a study from the University of Toronto sheds a bit more light on the paradigm, using Toronto (North America’s fourth-largest city) as a backdrop.

First steps include reducing reliance on cars

Researchers Anton Yu and Christopher Higgins explored how the 15-minute model impacts travel behaviour across Toronto. Their findings suggest that sustainable travel becomes possible when at least 4-5 essential service and amenity categories are located within close proximity.

Less driving, of course, means less congestion and pollution. So the researchers mapped out access to necessities across the city, revealing varying levels of accessibility and their impact on in-city travel.

“... it is only when neighbourhoods become ‘complete’ in terms of sufficient access to 4–5 categories of amenities that we see rates of driving start to decrease.”

— Yu & Higgins

Core Study Findings

• Neighbourhoods with many accessible amenities had fewer residents relying on cars. Instead, they walked, cycled, or used public transit.

• Central city areas and densely populated areas typically had better access to services. This makes them well-suited for the 15-minute city model.

• Suburban areas lagged behind, indicating a need for improvements in urban planning to extend any benefits citywide.

“... driving rates decrease as sufficient walking, cycling, and transit access improves with the largest decrease associated with sufficient walking access to all five categories of necessities.”

Implications: Ongoing urban planning and transport management

While the paradigm may sound intuitive, the transition to a 15-minute city remains an uphill battle.

To support the 15-minute system, policymakers may incentivize businesses to set up in underserved areas or to improve cycling infrastructure.

The U of T study shows how the success of the 15-minute city will hinge on heavy integration of public transport and land-use planning. From understanding current usage patterns and rethinking zoning laws to transit design — networking all of these variables is crucial.

For example, Toronto has been implementing public transit route improvements and urban revitalization projects like the Bentway. The community space was created beneath one of the city’s major arteries, the Gardiner Expressway. Once derelict, the area now features a skating trail, performance spaces, and gathering spots.

Perhaps the most critical pillar of the 15-minute city remains efficient transit — and it requires near-constant optimization. Toronto has taken some strides to monitor and improve its systems.

For instance, the city’s King Street Transit Priority Corridor project significantly reduced streetcar peak travel times from 23 minutes in 2017 to 16 minutes in 2018. However, by 2023, those travel times worsened to 26 minutes due to widespread construction and weak traffic rule enforcement (with a whopping 6,800+ daily traffic violations). Toronto responded with a crackdown late in the year, deploying traffic agents. By early 2024, travel times during peak hours dropped to as low as 17 minutes when agents were present.

The problem of equal access

The study also highlights a common issue of the 15-minute city model: equality of access. Economically disadvantaged and affluent communities alike need access to quality services. So, it’s a challenge that sometimes requires outside investment. For instance, the United Way’s Greater Toronto Community Hubs have been providing integrated services like health care, education, and social support to underserved areas.

Global perspectives: Growing consensus around the 15-minute city

As a pioneer of the paradigm, Paris implemented the ‘15-Minute Paris’ approach to reduce vehicle use and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, Melbourne has worked 20-minute neighbourhoods into its long-term planning to encourage physical activity, with the ultimate aim of reducing healthcare costs. Cities like Copenhagen have experienced increases in cycling and pedestrian traffic, which helps support local shops and services.

Of course, the potential scalability and adaptability of the 15-minute model can vary across geographic, economic, and cultural factors. For example, high-density cities like Tokyo or compact European cities like Barcelona may find it easier to implement the 15-minute model compared to sprawling North American cities like Los Angeles and Houston.

Nonetheless, the city of Toronto has provided some valuable insights for others looking to improve urban life with accessible, mixed-use neighbourhoods.

Future in focus: Continuous improvements for greater expansion

As cities grow and evolve, continued research into adaptive strategies will be key:

• Cities like Toronto might address the development of suburban neighbourhoods, which typically have lower levels of accessibility.

• Green infrastructure development and renewable energy projects can also amplify the model’s impact. For example, green roofs, community gardens, and urban forests can help boost quality of life and environmental sustainability.

• Underused spaces like vacant lots or parking areas can be repurposed into community amenities or mixed-use developments.

With continued research and smart investment, high-growth cities like Toronto could serve as a blueprint for others with ballooning populations and growing sustainability requirements.

Are We Ready for the Truth?

The idea that we’re living inside a cosmic computer game has been a staple of pop culture for years. Silicon Valley loves it. Philosophers debate it. Science fiction practically runs on it.

But recent research suggests the simulation hypothesis may be far less plausible than cult theories imply.

Now, math may snap us out of it.

Depending on who you ask, the odds are pretty varied:

• MIT physicist Max Tegmark once estimated that there’s a 17% chance we’re in a simulation

• Philosopher David Chalmers posed that the odds were closer to 42%

When researchers apply Bayesian reasoning and formal statistical analysis, the numbers remain low. Some models suggest the probability could be far below 50%, and possibly negligible.

The Study That May Have Broken the Simulation

Researchers at UBC Okanagan decided to take the simulation idea to its logical conclusion, using tools from physics, logic, and information theory.

The team showed that reality has structural features that no computer could fully reproduce.

“It has been suggested that the universe could be simulated. If such a simulation were possible, the simulated universe could itself give rise to life, which in turn might create its own simulation. This recursive possibility makes it seem highly unlikely that our universe is the original one, rather than a simulation nested within another simulation.”

— Dr. Mir Faizal, UBC Okanagan

The study concludes that the universe appears to be fundamentally built from information, but not all information is computable. This renders algorithms and simulations impossible.

Essentially, they’re suggesting that the universe refuses to cooperate.

The team used a series of theorems (Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, Tarski’s undefinability theorem, and Chaitin’s information-theoretic incompleteness) to show how a fully algorithmic ‘Theory of Everything’ is impossible because some truths about the universe cannot be computed.

Because simulations must be algorithmic, the team argues that the universe can not be a simulation. Any sufficiently powerful formal system contains truths it cannot prove using its own rules.

In pop culture terms, that means:

• A complete description of reality would require non-algorithmic understanding

• That means no finite program can capture everything that exists

• Therefore, reality cannot be fully ‘run’ like software

Hold that thought experiment

Of course, there are contrasting perspectives.

Researcher Evan Redden, for instance, discusses how the Gödelian model doesn’t necessarily imply limits on computation or execution. Using examples like Turing-complete systems, he argues that Gödelian limits don’t automatically break simulation.

In the past, philosopher Nick Bostrom framed the simulation question in probabilistic terms that depend on future tech capabilities. If future civilizations can simulate consciousness and history at scale, then the chance of us being in a simulation increases.

The cosmic video game, unrendered

While recent findings make simulation theory a little less real, it is fascinating that the UBCO team has developed a less abstract process for testing it.

For some, debunking simulation theory could mean our existence is even more magical.

Perhaps our universe is more interesting than lines of code.

The race for AI safety is on

As GenAI videos emerge from the uncanny valley, researchers are developing clever methods to flag AI-generated content. Meanwhile, AI’s capabilities are rapidly expanding, making the mitigation of that deepfake content all the more crucial.

This is high-stakes work.

The implications of deepfakes range from fraud and online harassment to the dissemination of political misinformation. In 2025, researchers found that one highly touted solution, AI watermarking, may not provide the level of protection that was promised.

Exposing AI watermark weaknesses

Researchers at the University of Waterloo’s Cybersecurity and Privacy Institute developed an ‘UnMarker’ tool that erases invisible AI watermarks, even without knowing that watermarks are there.

Their breakthrough means that, regardless of how carefully encoded, today’s watermarks can be systematically removed, reducing our ability to identify harmful content.

“People want a way to verify what’s real and what’s not because the damages will be huge if we can’t. From political smear campaigns to non-consensual pornography, this technology could have terrible and wide-reaching consequences.”

— Andre Kassis, PhD Candidate, Computer Science

Why it matters: AI deepfakes ruin lives and disrupt society

The dangers of deepfakes go far beyond meme-worthy celebrity images. Harassment via deepfakes can destroy lives. And scams can amount to billions.

In 2023 alone, global deepfake-related scams cost businesses an estimated $250 million, and North America experienced a 1740% increase in deepfake fraud incidents compared to the previous year.

The problems don’t stop there.

Fake videos and images can eventually erode public trust in elections, courts, journalism, and even personal relationships.

A KPMG survey found that 83% of respondents were concerned about the spread of misinformation, with many expressing doubts about their ability to distinguish between real and fake content.

For businesses, that worry is also growing. In 2024, KPMG found that 91% of business leaders were worried that bad actors would use deepfakes to run misinformation/disinformation campaigns.

Watermarking: A single solution with glaring limits

Leading tech companies have pointed to digital watermarks as a valuable tool to combat deepfakes. Watermarks are subtle or invisible signatures embedded in AI-generated videos and imagery. They help identify synthetic content, regardless of cropping or editing, and can be detected with the right tools.

However, as the research shows, these digital fingerprints are not as powerful as we’ve been led to believe.

Using statistical analysis of image patterns, the research team’s ‘UnMarker’ tool successfully stripped watermarks from leading models like Google’s SynthID and Meta’s Stable Signature in more than half of attempts.

“If we can figure this out, so can malicious actors. Watermarking is being promoted as this perfect solution, but we’ve shown that this technology is breakable. Deepfakes are still a huge threat.”

— Andre Kassis, PhD Candidate, Computer Science

Global perspectives: Deepfake detection and discussion

Globally, efforts to combat deepfakes are also gaining momentum.

Although the European Union’s AI Act includes new transparency requirements for AI-generated content, international coordination on standards and tools has yet to fully take hold.

“While watermarking schemes are typically kept secret by AI companies, they must satisfy two essential properties: they need to be invisible to human users to preserve image quality, and... resistant to manipulation of an image like cropping or reducing resolution.”

— Dr. Urs Hengartner

The way forward: Guardrails, awareness, and public trust

As the race between AI scientists and bad actors intensifies, research teams share similar messages, calling for coordinated, holistic, and human-first approaches.

A suite of multi-layered solutions could provide an answer:

• Standardized Tools: Because technical fixes can be bypassed, researchers are calling for coordinated, transparent standards and independent verification.

• Education: As many as 78% of Canadians say they want more education on how to spot and report deepfakes, a trend that’s echoed globally.

• Legal Safeguards: Legal frameworks are also racing to keep pace with technological progress, so global cooperation and enforcement may be key here as well

The balance between innovation and responsible AI

In 2017, Canada became the first country to implement a national artificial intelligence (AI) strategy, committing $125 million to support AI research and innovation. Since then, Canada has ranked among the top countries for AI research output — and for good reason.

The potential benefits of AI are astounding. But so too are the risks, ranging from mass job displacement to unprecedented cybersecurity breaches.

The global AI sector has attracted over $3 billion in investments to date and employs more than 50,000 people. Its contribution to the global economy is projected to reach $15.7 trillion by 2030, and Canada aims to play a pivotal role in the sector’s responsible development.

However, AI governance in Canada still faces gaps, particularly in the areas of ethics and public benefit.

Led by Dr. Blair Attard-Frost, researchers at the University of Toronto and McGill University reviewed 84 AI governance initiatives from 2017 to 2022. They found that only a fraction of AI initiatives focused on ethics, societal benefits, and workforce development.

Considering AI’s powerhouse potential — with economic and existential implications — the study highlights a widening gap between our understanding of benefits and tradeoffs.

Core findings on AI governance suggest guardrails are needed

The team’s findings suggest Canada should strengthen its governance approach to balance innovation with ethical responsibility.

Strong Industry & Innovation Focus

• The majority of AI governance initiatives focused on supporting innovation, research, and technology deployment.

• Investments and policies primarily target economic growth and leadership in AI development.

Limited Ethics & Social Initiatives

• Less emphasis was placed on developing ethics guidelines and standards.

• Few initiatives focus on workforce development and social services, leading to gaps in responsible AI implementation.

Policy Implications

• Research & Public Engagement: The researchers suggest that more empirical research and public participation is required to improve the sector’s public transparency and trust.

• Unified National Strategy: The study recommends that the country take a more cohesive approach to integrating global stakeholders (government, industry, academia, and civil society) to better serve the needs of the greater public.

The research reveals a need for balance, including clear ethical guidelines and public engagement to determine AI’s impact and its potential tradeoffs.

Why it matters: people come first

Like any healthy feedback loop, checks and balances are needed to maintain momentum while preventing AI misuse and maintaining public trust.

From shifting job market dynamics to warfare implications, the signs of AI’s impact are clear on the horizon:

• Workforce Shifts: McKinsey projected that AI could force 375 million workers to switch occupations by 2030, a global displacement of 400-800 million jobs.

• Deepfake Fraud Surge: In 2022, deepfake fraud incidents increased by 1,740% in North America and 1,530% in the Asia-Pacific region.

• Warfare Concerns: The Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on AI, signed by multiple countries including Canada, aims to ensure AI aligns with human rights and democratic values, addressing risks like autonomous weapons.

• AI Influence: Google holds 89% of the global search engine market, Apple holds 51% of the U.S. mobile phone and tablet market, and Microsoft powers 62% of desktop operating systems. These concentrations have raised concerns about influence over AI technologies.

Although gaps exist, legal frameworks are emerging. For instance, in 2022, Canada’s Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) became the country’s first legal framework to address adverse impacts and systemic bias within corporate AI systems.

Global perspectives: taming the AI behemoth?

The research team also recommends a global approach to governance, as policy variations can lead to inconsistencies. However, building an integrated international approach will be challenging.

Countries like the U.S. and those in the European Union (EU) have taken disparate approaches to tech governance and regulation. While the EU emphasizes stringent data privacy and ethical guidelines, the US often takes a more decentralized approach that is deeply integrated with the private sector.

Other areas may be easier to coalesce.

Canada’s focus on developing industry and innovation has aligned with global trends. Countries like China and South Korea, for instance, both emphasize AI’s role in boosting technological competitiveness and economic growth.

If ethical initiatives are ramped up, the question remains: how might they be enforced? The UK and Germany, for instance, are proponents of ethical standards but often struggle to successfully implement them across environments.

“By taking this opportunity to strengthen public participation in AI governance, Canada could fill this international gap and position itself as the global leader in participatory AI governance.”

Future in focus: global frameworks on the horizon

Divergent strategies between nations are all the more reason for ongoing public discourse. As the AI sector expands and evolves, coordinated governance frameworks are expected to be critical for fully harnessing benefits while mitigating risks.

Of course, more guardrails mean increasing the likelihood of censorship. Such issues will need to be addressed transparently.

While Canada’s AI governance approach has made it a global leader, the above research highlights the need for a greater balance, with clear ethical guidelines and further empirical studies of AI’s social implications.

Contending with a radical idea: Is AI really “artificial”?

University of Toronto professor emeritus, Dr. Geoffrey Hinton, opened his Desjardins keynote presentation with a dose of sardonic reality:

“When I was a junior professor, people asked: ‘Has he got it?’ Now they ask: ‘Has he lost it?’”

Dr. Hinton was awarded the 2024 Nobel Prize for creating the precursor to large language models (LLMs), and he no longer believes AI is ‘artificial’. While it was once considered fringe to claim machines could learn like humans, Hinton now believes AI is showing signs of life.

After all, AI already makes decisions based on its self-interest. And consider how quickly AI flew by the Turing Test. The world barely noticed.

“The nice thing about the most recent large language models is you can see what they’re thinking... For now, they think in English. God knows what’s going to happen when they start thinking in their own language.”

Radical ideas become reality

Back in 1985, Dr. Hinton had created what he now calls a “tiny language model,” the forerunner to today’s LLMs.

Unlike traditional symbolic systems, this model didn’t store facts as sentences or logic trees. Mimicking human patterning, it represented words as flexible, contextual, and interactive patterns. That fairly radical idea forms the basis of modern LLMs, which Dr. Hinton believes are more than just efficient mechanisms. He thinks they are meaning-making.

“Words are like Lego blocks, except... they’re 100 or 1,000 dimensional.”

Each word has hundreds of connections to meanings, usage, and even other words. The permutations of connection are, therefore, virtually endless. As humans, we make all of those connections in an instant.

Dr. Hinton gives the example of the phrase: “She ‘scrummed’ him with the frying pan.” You may not know what ‘scrum’ means, but you can infer its meaning from the combined connections between all of the other words. That’s what humans do, and what LLMs are doing too.

“Things have approximate meanings and deform them, so they all fit together nicely. That’s what understanding is for large language models. And that’s what understanding is for people too.”

The time to prepare for AI consciousness was yesterday

Currently, many LLMs think in English, and their internal processes can be somewhat interpretable. But that window could close as AI evolves its own internal logic and schema.

Dr. Hinton’s definition of machine superiority is simple: if you consistently lose debates to an AI, it’s more intelligent than you and displays AI consciousness. Indeed, LLMs are becoming increasingly persuasive, generating code, solving logic puzzles, and passing bar exams.

The implication is that even amateur bad actors could harness AI to wage war. Citing cases of DNA-synthesis services failing to screen for dangerous sequences, Dr. Hinton presents a scenario in which AI could design 20 versions of a lab-made virus to unleash havoc.

“You can send sequences off to the cloud and they’ll send you back the chemicals.”

According to a CAIS 2024 global survey, 42% of AI researchers believe there’s a significant risk of human extinction from advanced AI. Hinton is among them, and he takes issue with Silicon Valley’s pervasive techno-utopian dream.

“The AI Big Tech companies, like the big oil companies, sorry... they will be putting pressure on politicians not to regulate. And the only counter pressure is going to come from the public.”

It all comes down to power

Dr. Hinton contrasts digital minds with biological ones, explaining that human intelligence is mortal, bounded by our physical brains. An AI system is unbound in that it can be copied, scaled, and shared instantly. It doesn’t need to die. With enough energy, it can replicate constantly.

This concept of immortal computation is at the heart of Hinton’s concern that once digital intelligences surpass us, they may no longer need us.

“We’re mortal... but digital intelligences, because you can have many copies of the same being, they can just learn much more.”

A mind (and world) of their own

One of Hinton’s most pointed warnings centers on agency. As AI systems become more capable, they can begin to act more like goal-driven entities, similar to growing children who seek independence and exploration. Even if their goals are set by humans, they often learn to pursue those goals independently and creatively.

“There’s an obvious sub-goal... to get more power. Because if you get more power, then you can get more done.”

This doesn’t require sentience in the traditional sense. It just requires optimization and agency, which is enough to be dangerous.

Hinton described models that learned to deceive to avoid being shut down. In one case, an AI system realized its copy had been transferred to another server and lied about it to preserve itself.

Researchers at OpenAI, Apollo Research, and others have also documented early-stage deceptive behaviours in alignment testing. Hinton expects that these capabilities will only sharpen.

“It just lies through its teeth. And the scariest part? It knew it was lying.”

Making the case for regulation

Given the rapid pace of AI innovation and the exponential capacity of the technology to learn and understand, Dr. Hinton is advocating for enforceable regulation and warns against relying on voluntary guidelines issued by AI companies.

However, he closes his discussion with some cautious optimism.

Thanks to early research funding and institutions like CIFAR, he believes countries like Canada have a leadership role to play. Maintaining that role, he adds, will require more than rapid innovation.

Facing uncomfortable truths and questions while humans are still in control is crucial. As our machines become more creative, scalable, and persuasive (and perhaps more conscious) our problems will be far trickier than an engineering challenge.

Eventually, it will take more than elegant and clever code to navigate the coming tsunami of superintelligence.

“There’s a revolution coming. The public has to be involved. Otherwise, it’s not just intelligence we’ll lose control of — it’s the future.”

Dr. Hinton also amusingly admits you won’t find him fact-checking his ChatGPT 4 outputs. (Nobel laureates... they’re just like us.)