Canada’s critical minerals sector stands at a pivotal juncture. The country’s geology and geography give it extraordinary potential to play a defining role in global supply chains for metals essential to electrification, clean energy, and defence.
But as lawyers working across the sector emphasize, realizing that potential will require more than exploration and extraction. Coordinated action on infrastructure, regulatory clarity, investment certainty, and international partnerships will be crucial to translate geological advantage into sustainable, legally defensible economic opportunity.
For Sander Grieve, partner at Bennett Jones LLP, the starting point is geography itself. “We have markets we're close to that are important and need us. Our country’s size and scale means that some things are in very remote locations, and have infrastructure challenges, but it also means we have huge geography to explore,” he says.
Recent Articles
That abundance, he notes, is only part of the story. Transforming potential into production requires massive capital outlays to explore and de-risk projects. “We are closer to the beginning than the middle of this story as significant capital must be spent on exploration to prove the arguments for developing new mines.”
Infrastructure, in Grieve’s view, is inseparable from the mining story behind critical minerals. Many of Canada’s most promising deposits are in remote regions where access is minimal or nonexistent. Says Grieve: “So it's about building infrastructure for these projects and their host communities – roads, rail, whatever transportation solutions are required.”
Yet he cautions that the burden of infrastructure cannot fall solely on private operators. “Many projects are so remote that industry alone cannot bear the burden. They must have a partner helping with those costs, then you can see a pathway to building the necessary infrastructure for both the community and the economic development project.”
In his view, that partnership must involve governments willing to think strategically about how mineral development can drive broader regional growth and legal frameworks that define responsibilities and liabilities to avoid disputes that can delay projects for years.
Grieve notes that governments have signalled strong support for critical minerals, but the follow-through remains at best unclear. “We’re told there’s going to be an express approval process – through the recently passed One Canadian Economy Act – but we don't know what that looks like yet, we don't have a project or process in place,” he says. "Industry is supportive of the trend but increasingly worries about the total lack of follow-through."
Legal certainty, he stresses, is also as important as geological certainty: contracts, permitting, and regulatory compliance must all be predictable for investors to commit capital.
Grieve points to the strategic role critical minerals play in both defence and industry. “You can see from the China example how powerful it is to have market dominance and stockpiles in these commodities if you are a superpower and you need to build new defence systems. The components that are required to make those systems work often rely on the backbone of critical minerals. The American automotive sector dependence on chips for basic systems is another example of how hooked we have become on technologies and underlying critical minerals,” he explains.
Grieve identifies copper and molybdenum as particularly early opportunities. “The absolute no-brainer is copper. Copper is essential to electrification, essential to development. There are no easy or good replacements right now,” he says. Molybdenum's role in steel making is another central opportunity. " Everyone likes to talk about the lesser-known commodities, but how many windmills, Teslas, or drones do you get without steel? Zero."
Greg McNab, partner and co-head of the Canadian mining group at Dentons Canada, frames the conversation around the unique dynamics of individual commodities. “Copper seems to be the one that everybody gets their head around,” he says, given its irreplaceable role in electrification and grid expansion.
Lithium, by contrast, has proven volatile. “The metal itself is not rare, but getting it out of the ground is capital-intensive, and inconsistent government support makes investors wary.” Demand, meanwhile, rises and falls with EV adoption trends, leaving producers exposed to shifting political winds.
Rare earths carry their own complications. “Projects that previously weren’t economical are now getting government and political support,” McNab explains. Yet even with strong deposits, the lack of domestic refining and processing remains a bottleneck. China’s dominance in that space means Canada risks being relegated to a raw-materials supplier unless it invests in downstream facilities – a process that will require careful contract structuring, trade law navigation, and regulatory compliance.
For McNab, regulation is both a challenge and an opportunity. “Mining requires long-term capital investment years ahead of the actual product showing up, and these financial disruptions have significantly affected the long-term market,” he notes, pointing to global turbulence from tariffs and geopolitical conflict. Reforms like the “One Canadian Economy Act” are helping to streamline reviews, but what investors crave most is certainty.
“Knowing that financial and regulatory support will be reliable for a decade would allow companies to plan and execute projects more efficiently,” he says, adding that, in Canada, Indigenous engagement in economic endeavours such as mining is both an obligation and an opportunity.
“We have accelerated Indigenous engagement discussions,” McNab notes, citing Ontario’s Ring of Fire as a project where participation could unlock development. “There’s a historic opportunity for communities to participate effectively.” In his view, meaningful engagement must be embedded into the legal and financial frameworks of projects, not treated as an afterthought – ensuring agreements are robust and enforceable while respecting treaty and consultation rights.
McNab also sees geopolitics shaping the landscape. With the US committing billions to infrastructure and defence, demand for secure supplies is surging. Canada, by virtue of geography and reputation, could emerge as a trusted supplier at a moment when global markets are highly unsettled.
“Strong demand from the US and ongoing domestic investments will create opportunities for Canada to play a key role in the global supply of critical minerals,” he says, noting that critical minerals could be an important bargaining chip in trade negotiations with the Americans.
Jacques Shore, senior counsel at Gowling WLG, is conscious of the international dimensions and emphasizes that critical minerals are about more than resource extraction.
“Reliance on one country such as China for such critical minerals is not the best route for us,” he says. For Shore, the legal and trade dimensions of Canada’s position are inseparable from questions of security and diplomacy. With a network of free trade agreements, including with Chile, Canada is well placed to strengthen alliances just as the US recalibrates its supply chains.
As an example, Germany and Canada agreed in late August to deepen co-operation on critical minerals amid growing global concern over China’s export curbs.
China's April decision to halt exports of rare earths and related magnets has disrupted global supply chains, hurting automakers, aerospace firms, semiconductor producers, and military contractors.
Despite the recent trade dispute, “The United States has to continue being one of our best partners. We’re just going to work on that,” he stresses, urging careful, quiet diplomacy that highlights mutual benefits without sparking public confrontation. Contractual frameworks, trade compliance, and dispute resolution mechanisms are all part of the equation.
Ian Mitchell, a Gowling partner focused on trade and mining, stresses the heterogeneity of markets. “There is no uniform market. Lithium, copper, and rare earths each have entirely different dynamics,” he says. That volatility makes legal and regulatory frameworks particularly important for investors looking for stability. He points to the copper market’s reaction to US tariffs as an example of how quickly prices can swing, while lithium has fallen sharply with cooling EV demand.
For Canada to transform itself from a resource-rich jurisdiction into a reliable, strategically indispensable player in critical minerals means not only developing new mines but also investing in the industrial capacity to process minerals into forms usable by manufacturers. Legal oversight of environmental impacts, chemical handling, and worker safety will also be critical to ensuring these processing facilities are both compliant and commercially viable.
Both Shore and Mitchell agree that Canada’s regulatory frameworks, while often criticized, are also its greatest assets. “We need to be commercially user-friendly while still recognizing our responsibilities on safety and environmental protection,” Shore says.
Mitchell adds that investors are willing to wait for credible, transparent processes if it means confidence in the integrity of the outcome. That credibility is what makes Canadian supply chains attractive, “and legal practitioners play a key role in ensuring agreements, permits, and environmental compliance meet both investor and community expectations.”
Still, infrastructure remains a glaring challenge. Mitchell points to the decades-long delays in building a road to Ontario’s Ring of Fire as emblematic of the gap between potential and reality. Shore sees innovation as part of the solution, pointing to small modular nuclear reactors, for example, to power remote projects more sustainably. For him, Canada’s uranium sector and nuclear expertise should also be seen not only as commercially significant but as essential to climate objectives. Legal frameworks for nuclear licensing, safety, and waste management will be pivotal to realizing that potential.
Investor confidence ultimately ties together these themes of regulation, infrastructure, and diplomacy. Shore argues that international players are drawn to Canada precisely because of its stability, but warns that complacency is dangerous. If regulatory duplication and delays persist, and if infrastructure lags, global capital will go elsewhere. Mitchell agrees, concluding that the window of opportunity is narrow.
“This is our moment to actually fulfill what we need to,” Shore says. Mitchell echoes the urgency: “The challenge is to streamline without undermining the very regulatory credibility that makes Canada attractive.”
Across their perspectives, the message is consistent. Canada has resources, geography, and political momentum on its side, but the path forward demands clarity, collaboration, and urgency. As Grieve, McNab, Shore, and Mitchell each emphasize in their own way, critical minerals are not just another commodities story. They are a convergence of law, regulation, infrastructure, and geopolitics. The opportunity to lead is real – but so is the risk of watching it slip away.