Ontario most attractive jurisdiction in Canada for mining investment: study

The Esker mining camp in the Ring of Fire in the James Bay lowlands in northern Ontario, Friday, Oct. 24, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Christopher Katsarov

Global mining executives ranked Ontario as the most attractive jurisdiction in Canada for mining investment, according to a Fraser Institute report.

The report, released Thursday, ranks 68 jurisdictions around the world based on their minerals and metals resources and how public policy factors encourage or discourage mining investment.

“A sound and predictable regulatory regime coupled with competitive fiscal policies help make a jurisdiction attractive in the eyes of mining investors,” says Elmira Aliakbari, director of the Fraser Institute’s Centre for Natural Resource Studies and co-author of the study.

About 256 mining professionals responded to the survey from Aug. 5 to Nov. 26, 2025. About 35.9 per cent of respondents identified as a company president, 19.1 per cent were consultants, 14.1 per cent were senior managers and 10.5 per cent were vice-presidents.

National rankings for investment

• Ontario
• Saskatchewan
• Newfoundland and Labrador
• British Columbia
• Quebec
• Alberta
• Yukon
• Nunavut
• New Brunswick
• Northwest Territories
• Nova Scotia

Global rankings

• Nevada
• Ontario
• Saskatchewan
• South Australia
• Arizona
• Western Australia
• Botswana
• Norway
• Sweden
• Saudi Arabia

Quebec, which ranks 22^nd in the world, fell out of the top 10 most attractive jurisdictions for investment. The province previously ranked in the top 10 category for four consecutive years.

Nova Scotia moved out of the bottom ten jurisdictions for investment, according to the report.

The worst jurisdictions for investments include China, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Bolivia, Mali. and Guinea.

Policy factors alone

While geologic and economic factors are important, policy factors also play a role in investment consideration, the Institute says.

Respondents in the study were also asked to rank provinces and states on policy only in the world. On policy factors alone, Alberta ranks in the global top three while Ontario ranks fifth, Newfoundland & Labrador ranks seventh, and Saskatchewan ranks eighth.

“Policymakers in every province and territory should understand that mineral deposits alone are not enough to attract investment,” says Aliakbari adding policies can hinder mining investment in Canadian jurisdictions.

Policy factors include uncertainty about the current administration on environmental regulations, legal systems, taxes, protected areas and disputed land claims, the Institute says.

The Institute says Canadian jurisdictions are not capitalizing on their strong mineral potential due to a lack of policies that would attract investment. For instance, Yukon and Manitoba, ranking 11^th and 13^th for mineral potential, fall to 47^th and 39^th, respectively, when considering policy factors alone.

Similarly, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, despite ranking 17^th and 19^th for mineral potential, fall to 43^rd and 54^th, respectively, when ranked on policy factors. The territories along with the Yukon ranked the worst-performing Canadian jurisdictions on policy factors.

British Columbia continues to perform poorly on the policy front largely due to investor concerns over disputed land claims and protected areas, the Institute says.

Moving on up

By way of comparison, Fraser evaluated 82 jurisdictions in 2024 in the world. Ontario moved up, previously ranking 15^th while Saskatchewan joined the top three, ranking seventh in 2024.

“Saskatchewan has historically performed well in our survey,” says Aliakbari. “According to our respondents, this province has been able to match its strong mineral potential with a solid policy environment, resulting in the province ranking among the top jurisdictions historically.”

Methodology

This year the survey includes 68 jurisdictions from all continents except Antarctica. The 2025 questionnaire included several jurisdictions that had insufficient responses to enable them to be included in the report. The minimum threshold for inclusion was five responses. Jurisdictions with between five and nine responses were included but have been noted accordingly. Any jurisdiction with fewer than five responses was dropped.