When Canada and the EU sit down in Montreal on Thursday, the most concrete item on the table may be the least glamorous: rocks, and the metals inside them. Critical minerals run through almost every part of the partnership Ottawa wants to build, from defence production and batteries to artificial intelligence hardware and clean energy. Canada has abundant critical minerals. The EU has manufacturing depth and a pressing need for secure, non Chinese supply. That pairing is the practical core of the Alliance for the Future.
The summit’s wider agenda covers trade, digital policy, energy, defence, security, education, research and youth mobility. But minerals give those headings something to attach to. A framework that promises cooperation on critical raw materials must answer specific questions: which minerals, mined where, processed by whom, under what environmental and labour standards, and shipped through which ports and refineries. The Prime Minister’s Office lists critical minerals among Canada’s strengths for the partnership, alongside energy, space, artificial intelligence and quantum technology.
From partnership to projects
The background favours a deal. The EU was Canada’s second largest goods and services trading partner in 2025, with trade of about 178 billion dollars, and the two sides have already deepened economic and defence cooperation through CETA and Canada’s participation in the SAFE defence instrument. Since the 2025 summit launched a Security and Defence Partnership, they have also advanced dialogue on competitiveness, economic security and supply chains. Minerals fit that story because they are both an economic input and a security concern: a supply chain that depends on a single source is a vulnerability, whatever the product.
The difficulty is time. Mines take years to permit and build, processing plants take longer, and communities near proposed sites, including Indigenous communities, must be partners in the process rather than obstacles to be managed. A summit declaration that promises faster cooperation without addressing permitting, infrastructure and consent will disappoint quickly. One that names specific corridors, processing partnerships and timelines will be judged more kindly.
The test for Friday
By Friday, the question to ask is not whether leaders used warm language about partnership. It is whether they named projects. A minerals partnership with named sites, named European buyers and processors, and a timetable for the next summit’s review would be a real outcome. A general commitment to cooperate, however sincere, would leave the substance to another year of talks. Canada and the EU have spent a year and a half building this moment. Montreal should show what they intend to build with it.
