September 29, 2026 

Student guest post by Piper French 

This post is based on a Working Paper from Piper French,  Dr. Jonathan Boron, and Dr. Andreanne Doyon from Simon Fraser University, funded through the Smart Prosperity Institute’s Economics and Environmental Policy Research Network.

Addressing climate change will require a transition to clean energy; however, a renewable energy transition is not inherently a “just” transition. From copper needed for solar panels and rare earth elements needed for wind turbines, renewable energy is highly mineral-intensive in nature. This has contributed to a surge in projected global demand for critical minerals (CMs) in combination with geopolitical factors. In response to rising demand, eleven Canadian jurisdictions (except P.E.I., Nunavut, and Yukon) have developed strategies to support increased CM extraction. Given that Canada is a settler-colonial country, mineral extraction is known to occur on Indigenous territories or near Indigenous communities where it can create negative social and environmental effects ^[1], such as biodiversity loss, water, soil, and air pollution, food system disruption ^[2], and gender-based violence ^[3].

Given this context, our research asks: how is justice considered in Canada’s national, provincial and territorial critical mineral strategies? Although strategic government documents cannot achieve systemic transformation on their own, they can demonstrate commitment to certain development paths, and when developed with justice at the forefront, they are more likely to help create a better future.

In this project, we developed a qualitative analytical framework, the Justice in Energy Mineral Strategies (JEMS) framework, based on a systematic review of critical mineral, Indigenous environmental justice, and just energy transition literature. By creating and then utilizing the JEMS framework, we were able to determine how justice is, or is not, incorporated into Canada’s strategic plans for CM development. At a high level, the Justice in Energy Mineral Strategies (JEMS) framework asks:

1. What narratives and rationales are being used to justify CM extraction and development in settler-colonial contexts?
2. What is the process and procedure for how decisions are being made?
3. Is there recognition of the negative effects mineral extraction has, and how are these harms addressed?
4. Does the strategy support epistemic (referring to knowledge and how it is formed) transformation, acknowledging the need to move beyond settler-colonial structures and thinking as the only way to engage with the world, and towards a decolonial, pluralistic understanding of the world?

Our findings demonstrate that justice is being incorporated inconsistently across Canadian jurisdictions, and that the strategies collectively do not help guide Canada towards a just energy transition. Below, we provide a summary of our analysis, responding to the four broad concepts proposed by the questions above.  

Narratives & Rationales

Almost every CM strategy focuses on economic growth and the need to expand extraction to meet projected global CM demand. Reconciliation is primarily discussed through economic means, such as job opportunities for Indigenous Nations or revenue sharing. Narratives around mineral extraction or land are present in all strategies and reveal some of the logics underpinning critical mineral development. Almost every strategy describes areas of land as “under-developed” or “under-explored” to explain Canada’s mineral potential, but this language erases Indigenous presence and subverts alternative uses for land.

Mining practices are described as “responsible” or “sustainable” while lacking a common definition for these terms. Without clear definitions, these terms can easily be co-opted to greenwash the mining industry, instead of adequately addressing potential harm. Most strategies include opportunities for mineral recycling or recovery, while just less than half of the strategies mention a circular economy as an alternative economic approach.

Process & Procedure

When describing decision-making, “partnership” language is used in every strategy, but only three strategies also mention ownership opportunities for Indigenous Nations. Ownership language may suggest greater control over or benefits from the CM project for the Indigenous Nation. Further, only one strategy briefly mentions Indigenous self-determination, and only two strategies mention consent language related to either FPIC or consent-based decision-making agreements with Indigenous Nations. Failing to recognize consent suggests that projects will proceed regardless of any Indigenous Nations’ agreement.

Recognition

Less than half of the strategies describe the potential harm that CM extraction can create, and about half of the strategies recognize the disproportionate effects that extraction has on Indigenous Peoples, women, or other marginalized communities. However, if harms are not acknowledged explicitly, then it will be harder to avoid them in future development. In some strategies, benefits sharing agreements with Indigenous Nations are the main response to potential harm from extraction. Yet, while these agreements can be beneficial through the provision of economic benefits, they also raise their own concerns, including that they often lack specific consideration for the gendered impacts of extraction or fail to ensure that Indigenous women are part of the agreement’s creation ^[3].

Epistemic Transformation

Less than half of the strategies indicate a responsibility to protect the environment. Only three strategies refer to Indigenous Knowledges in some way, indicating a failure to consider other worldviews beyond a Western perspective. Justice is only explicitly mentioned in one strategy.

Moving forward, we should expect more from CM strategies, especially since the national one and a few provincial ones already consider important justice elements, such as harm recognition and consent. We suggest that policymakers utilize the JEMS framework, or the results of this analysis, to help assess CM development and to guide the development of future strategies. We also provide questions to help guide policymakers in supporting a just energy transition through CM or energy-transition-related strategies.

References:

​1) Finn, K., & Stanton, C. A. W. (n.d.). The (Un)just Use of Transition  Minerals: How Efforts to Achieve  a Low-Carbon Economy Continue  to Violate Indigenous Rights. 

2) Comincioli, N., Knittel, C. R., Olivetti, E. A., Romani, I. G., & Vergalli, S. (n.d.). Critical Minerals for a Just Energy Transition.

​3) Seck, S. L., & Simons, P. (2021). Sustainable Mining, Environmental Justice, and the Human Rights of Women and Girls: Canada as Home and Host State. In The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development (pp. 314-344).  Cambridge University Press.   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108555791.024  

This project, titled “Critical justice: Indigenous Peoples and critical mineral development”, was supported by the Economics and Environmental Policy Research Network (EEPRN) with funding awarded through The Smart Prosperity Institute’s 2024 Call for Proposals. Further details of this and other funded projects are available here.