Three-in-five say ‘losing sovereignty’ over key resources is bigger risk to economy than lost development
November 26, 2025 – The acceleration of development of critical resources is a clear priority for Prime Minister Mark Carney as the federal government expands the list under the purview of its Major Projects Office.
With billions of dollars of investment needed to advance many of the projects on the list, the outstanding question remains: where should that money come from?
As Canada looks to accelerate its economic growth in the face of threats to sovereignty from U.S. President Donald Trump, new data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute finds Canadians prioritizing domestic investment in critical resources such as oil and gas, copper, nickel and key minerals even if it potentially stalls development.
Three-in-five (59%) say “losing sovereignty” over these resources is a bigger threat to Canada than “missing out on development and jobs because of a lack of investment”. The latter is chosen as the bigger threat by three-in-ten (29%).
These questions come as Ottawa has held up a proposed purchase of Canada’s Teck Resources, one of the country’s biggest critical mineral companies, by British mining company Anglo American, asking for the combined company to be located in Canada and under Canadian regulations.
Three-in-five (60%) Canadians believe Canada should limit foreign investment; one-quarter (25%) would welcome it, in general. But even among those who welcome foreign ownership only one-third (35%) say they would do so without restricting what resources are available for investment.
There are also many countries Canadians would ban from ownership in critical resources outright. The top of the list are countries already under various levels of global embargoes – Russia (69% would restrict ownership), North Korea (67%) and Iran (60%), as well as China (59%), where investment has been discouraged by Ottawa in key areas for a number of years. But more than one-third (37%) of Canadians would also bar the U.S. from investing in critical resources in Canada as the two governments continue to discuss a new economic agreement in the wake of U.S. tariffs.
More Key Findings:
- In U.S.-Canada trade negotiations, two-thirds of Canadians would prioritize lowering tariffs (66%) and guaranteeing value-added jobs (64%) in exchange for U.S. access to critical minerals.
- Canadians are divided as to how they prefer new critical resource developments be funded. Three-in-ten (31%) say it should be by public-private partnerships. One-quarter (25%) say government should encourage investment only through tax breaks or grants. One-in-five (18%) believe critical resource developments should be entirely funded by provincial and federal governments.
About ARI
The Angus Reid Institute (ARI) was founded in October 2014 by pollster and sociologist, Dr. Angus Reid. ARI is a national, not-for-profit, non-partisan public opinion research foundation established to advance education by commissioning, conducting and disseminating to the public accessible and impartial statistical data, research and policy analysis on economics, political science, philanthropy, public administration, domestic and international affairs and other socio-economic issues of importance to Canada and its world.
INDEX
Part One: Awareness and knowledge
-
Canada’s current production of critical resources
-
Regional disparities in awareness
Part Two: Funding critical resource developments
-
Public vs. private
-
Sovereignty vs. losing out on foreign investments
-
Most believe Canada should limit foreign investment in critical resources
-
Limits even among those who would welcome foreign investment
-
-
More than one-third say Canada should block U.S. ownership
-
What would Canadians prioritize in return for U.S. access?
Part One: Awareness and knowledge
Canada’s current production of critical resources
Critical resources have become the talking point du jour as the Liberal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney has made them a focus of its economic plan. Of the 11 projects referred to the government’s Major Projects Office, whose goal is to fast-track projects “deemed to be of national importance and significance”, five produce critical minerals, such as nickel, graphite and copper, while another two are liquefied natural gas projects.
Many critical minerals play a key role already in Canada’s economy, but trail Canada’s production of other resources. For example, Canada is the top producer of potash in the world, while it also ranks highly in global production of uranium, diamonds, gold, oil, natural gas, nickel and aluminum. On other key resources, there is evidently room for growth, and room to provide an alternative source of the material as the U.S. looks to reduce its dependence on China for supply of those resources.
While most in this country recognize Canada’s status as a major producer of oil and gas, potash, aluminum, there is less recognition of Canada’s contributions when it comes to global production of gold, uranium, and diamonds:
Regional disparities in awareness
Viewing respondents’ answers by region reveals a lack of awareness of regional industries. Nearly everybody (99%) in Saskatchewan describes Canada as a “major producer” of potash; half (50%) in Quebec say the same. Conversely, awareness of Canada’s high volume of aluminum exports is lower outside of Quebec, where 83 per cent describe Canada as a “major producer”:
Part Two: Funding critical resource developments
Public vs. private
The government is faced with a decision on how to encourage investment in capital intensive projects for critical resources. The recent federal government budget includes efforts to both directly invest, through the use of a new $2-billion sovereign wealth fund for critical minerals, as well as to incentivize through tax credits.
Canadians are divided as to what the best approach might be. One-in-five (18%) prefer new critical resource projects to be entirely funded by provincial and federal governments. Three-in-ten (31%) say they prefer private-public partnerships. One-quarter (25%) believe new project should be mostly from the coffers of private companies, but the government should provide tax breaks or credits as incentives. The smallest group of the four, one-in-eight (12%), believe the government should stay out of it entirely.
Taken together, three-quarters (74%) of Canadians believe government should take a role in funding new critical resource projects.
Those who voted Liberal in April are more likely to want the government to fully fund, or to partner with private companies, on these projects (57%) than those who voted Conservative (42%). Those who supported the CPC are the most likely to say that the government should be encouraging these projects with tax breaks rather than directly investing in them (35%):
*Smaller sample size, interpret with caution
Sovereignty vs. losing out on foreign investments
Canadian sovereignty over its key natural resources has been a long-standing issue. In 2012, the Harper government faced criticism for allowing a Chinese state oil company to acquire oil company Nexen. Simultaneously, the government allowed a Malaysia’s Petronas to buy Progress Energy. Afterward, the government said future acquisitions of oilsands companies by foreign entities would only be allowed “on an exceptional basis”.
In 2020, Canada blocked Chinese-based Shandong Gold Mining from buying a Nunavut gold mine. The mine’s parent company was eventually acquired by a Toronto-based mining company. Then in 2024, the Canadian government stepped in to stop sale of a stockpile of critical minerals to a Chinese company, instead diverting the minerals to the Saskatchewan Resource Council.
The Canadian government has also taken action on previous investments from China, ordering three Chinese companies to divest from three critical mining companies in 2022.
While Chinese companies have been subjected to plenty of these decisions in recent years, Ottawa’s concern over foreign acquisition of critical resource companies is not solely focused on Beijing. British mining company Anglo American’s proposed takeover of Teck Resources, one of Canada’s largest critical mineral companies, has been put on hold by the federal government as it asks for the merged company to be “re-domiciled” in Canada, which would subject it to Canada’s tax code, regulations and financial reporting rules.
Overall, Canadians are more concerned with losing control of key resources to foreign investors (60%) than they are about missing out on development due to a potential lack of investors (29%). At least half of all voters for the four major political parties in the last election agree:
*Smaller sample size, interpret with caution
Most believe Canada should limit foreign investment in critical resources
With the above in the background, three-in-five (60%) believe foreign investment in Canada should be limited in critical resources even if it slows development. One-quarter (25%) disagree and would welcome foreign investment. A majority of past CPC (58%), Liberal (62%), NDP (75%) and Bloc Québécois voters (60%) say they prefer foreign investment be limited:
*Smaller sample size, interpret with caution
Those who believe Canada should limit foreign investment were asked a follow-up which emphasized the long timelines of critical resource projects, and the potential for delays if foreign investment were excluded. Few Canadians – representing nine per cent of the population overall – changed their mind.
Full question text:
“Because of the high costs, regulatory complexity, and technical risks, many mineral projects in Canada already take a decade or more to reach production — and relying only on domestic capital could stretch that timeline further, potentially delaying the benefits to Canadians by years or even decades. Would you say this is…
Worth it to keep domestic ownership/sovereignty
Not worth it, on second thought, you’d be more open to foreign investment”
*Smaller sample size, interpret with caution
Limits even among those who would welcome foreign investment
It is worth noting, too, that even among those who say Canada should welcome foreign investment to accelerate the development of critical resources there are caveats about which industries should be open to foreign investment. Canadians who otherwise welcome foreign investment choose freshwater (55%) as an area to limit foreign investment at the highest rate, but many would also block oil and gas (27%), uranium (25%) and potash (20%) from foreign ownership.
In the end, among those who say Canada should be open to foreign investment in the development of critical resource extraction, only one-third (35%) would leave it open to any of the materials listed in the survey:
More than one-third say Canada should block U.S. ownership
As noted earlier in the report, Canada’s concern over foreign acquisition of its critical resource companies has been mainly focused on preventing, and unwinding, Chinese investment. Respondents were asked whether there were any countries that they would prevent from owning stakes in critical resource development in Canada, and 59 per cent say they would ban Chinese companies.
Russia (69%), North Korea (67%), and Iran (60%), while not typically known for widescale foreign investment, are chosen at higher rates.
Notably, as Canadians’ opinions of the United States declines amidst the current tariff war between their country and its southern neighbour, more than one-third (37%) say they would ban the U.S. from investing in critical resources in Canada. The Trump administration acquired stakes in two Vancouver-headquartered critical mineral companies in October, deals that the federal government can still block if it chooses.
What would Canadians prioritize in return for U.S. access?
Canadians may have grown wary of the U.S. in the wake of President Donald Trump’s threats of annexation, but Canada remains in negotiations to come to an agreement on tariffs and other economic issues. An agreement on critical minerals and energy has reportedly been part of the stalled negotiations. If an agreement is not reached in the coming months, the joint review of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement looms next year.
Canadians are most likely to say they would prioritize reducing tariffs and trade barriers (66%) and guaranteeing value-added jobs in Canada (64%) in any agreement that would provide the U.S. access to critical minerals. Further down the list is strengthening Canada’s supply management system (30%), securing U.S. investment in Canada (23%), and enhancing security cooperation with the U.S. (20%).
The top two priorities of reducing tariffs and guaranteeing value-added Canadian jobs in exchange for U.S. access to critical minerals are shared across political lines. Recent Bloc Québécois voters are more likely to prioritize protecting supply management (44%) than others. Those who supported the Conservatives in the spring election express more interest in trading access to critical minerals for U.S. investment in Canada (33%) and enhanced defense cooperation between Canada and the U.S. (31%):
*Smaller sample size, interpret with caution
Survey Methodology:
The Angus Reid Institute conducted an online survey from Oct. 25-27, 2025, among a randomized sample of 1,607 Canadian adults who are members of Angus Reid Forum. The sample was weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to region, gender, age, household income, and education, based on the Canadian census. For comparison purposes only, a probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding. The survey was self-commissioned and paid for by ARI. Detailed tables are found at the end of this release.
For detailed results by age, gender, region, education, and other demographics, click here.
For PDF of full release, click here.
For full questionnaire, click here.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Shachi Kurl, President: 604.908.1693 shachi.kurl@angusreid.org @shachikurl
Dave Korzinski, Research Director: 250.899.0821 dave.korzinski@angusreid.org
Jon Roe, Research Associate: 825.437.1147 jon.roe@angusreid.org