Canada Wants a Space Act: One Licence per Mission, Insurance Powers and a Single Window

Canada has been building towards a space law for years without quite writing one. It licenses satellite radios under one statute, Earth observation under another and, if Parliament passes Bill C-28, rockets under a third. Activities that fall between them, such as refuelling a satellite, removing debris or running a commercial station, have no clear home at all.

On 20 October 2026 ISED published a Consultation on Legislative and Regulatory Modernization for Space Activities, which asks how a new Canadian Space Act should work. It is the most complete statement yet of how Ottawa intends to authorise and supervise space activities, and it matters beyond Canada: any operator with Canadian ground stations, Canadian investors or Canadian customers should expect to be inside its scope.

What was published, and the deadline

The document carries the reference SPB-007-26 and was issued by ISED on behalf of the Minister of Industry. The government’s news release of 22 October, issued during the SpaceBound 2026 conference, announced it alongside Canada’s first Positioning, Navigation and Timing Resilience Framework. Minister Joly said: “Building a strong Canada means supporting the industries that underpin our economic and national security.”

Comments go by email to ISED in Word or PDF format, citing the question and paragraph numbers, and should arrive no later than 21 December 2026. The paper asks 26 numbered questions. ISED says it may ask for more information afterwards, that AI tools may be used to process responses into a non-attributed public summary, and that “any further regulatory measure would be subject to further consultation”. In other words, there will be at least one more round before anything binding appears.

Why Canada wants a Space Act

The legal driver is Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, which makes each State responsible for its national activities in space and requires “authorization and continuing supervision” of private operators. Our Outer Space Treaty explainer sets out the text. ISED’s paper says fulfilling these obligations “is becoming increasingly complex as the space sector evolves”.

Canada also knows the Liability Convention from the claimant’s side. After the Soviet satellite Cosmos 954 broke up over Canadian territory in January 1978, the two governments settled “all matters connected with the disintegration” in a protocol of 2 April 1981, under which the Soviet Union paid C$3 million. A State that has sat on that side of the table has every reason to want control over what its own operators put in orbit. Our Liability Convention explainer covers the regime.

The practical driver is fragmentation. ISED describes the current framework as “fragmented and activity-focused”. The Minister of Industry licenses spectrum under the Radiocommunication Act; the Minister of Foreign Affairs licenses Earth observation systems under the Remote Sensing Space Systems Act; and the Minister of Transport regulates launches under the Aeronautics Act. The paper cites a 2022 independent review of the remote sensing statute in which over 90 per cent of respondents said that dealing with multiple government departments was “burdensome” or “very burdensome”.

Option one: a comprehensive Space Act

ISED’s preferred model is “a comprehensive Space Act that would serve as a legislative foundation for the regulation of all Canadian space activities”. It would cover activities in outer space and those “directly related to the operation, control, support or supervision” of them, including ground control and data. The list of activities in scope runs from satellite communications and Earth observation to on-orbit servicing, in-space manufacturing, active debris removal, space resource activities, space-based solar power and commercial space stations.

Three structural choices stand out.

First, the remote sensing regime would be folded into the new Act. Activities now licensed under the Remote Sensing Space Systems Act “would be regulated under a Space Act covering all space activities”, and the same security approach would apply to other activities that generate sensitive data, such as rendezvous and proximity operations.

Second, spectrum licences would be slimmed down. Satellites would still need a spectrum licence under the Radiocommunication Act, but conditions on “collision avoidance, space debris mitigation and end-of-life disposal” would move into the Space Act. Spectrum licence conditions “would be reduced to issues pertaining to spectrum management”.

Third, launch is off the table. ISED says it “does not intend to alter or replace” Transport Canada’s authority, and calls the Canadian Space Launch Act (Bill C-28) “a deliberate, critical first step”. The new Act would pick up where launch ends, with a “seamless transition of regulatory oversight from launch through to on-orbit operations”. I covered that bill in our Bill C-28 explainer; it is still before the House of Commons.

Existing licensees would not be switched over overnight. ISED floats grandfathering for low-risk activities and phased transition for others, and asks what timeframe would work.

Option two: a targeted Space Act

If the comprehensive approach meets “significant challenges”, ISED would fall back on “a targeted Space Act that only addresses in-space activities and services currently outside of legislative authorities”. Remote sensing would stay with Global Affairs, and spectrum-only satellites would need only a spectrum licence, with the Radiocommunication Act itself amended to add powers over insurance, liability and security.

One detail shows how the boundaries would work in practice: satellites that rely solely on optical links would fall under the Space Act, because no radio licence would catch them. And an Earth observation satellite that also carried out a novel activity could need three authorisations, under the remote sensing statute, the Radiocommunication Act and the new Act. ISED accepts this and says efforts “could be made to exempt potential overlapping regulatory requirements”. I read that as the clearest argument for option one.

One licence per mission, scaled to risk

ISED proposes “one licence for the authorization of a space mission” rather than separate licences for individual activities. A mission licence would consider the whole lifecycle, from design and payload deployment to modifications, decommissioning and disposal, but on an outcomes basis rather than through prescriptive rules for each stage. The Act could distinguish changes that need prior approval from changes that only need notification.

The paper lists the flexibility tools under consideration: phased approvals, conditional authorisations that let a company advance some stages while reviews finish, recognition of standards such as ISO standards, pre-application guidance, and regulatory sandboxes. It also raises “recognition of foreign authorizations where appropriate”, which would matter for Canadian companies already licensed in the United States or the United Kingdom.

Requirements would scale with risk. ISED lists factors including the nature and complexity of the mission, proximity to other objects, novel technology, collision and debris risk, operator experience, compliance history, security and potential liability exposure. It asks which mission categories should get streamlined review, and how to give applicants predictable timelines.

Insurance, indemnity and liability caps

This is the section operators will read first. ISED proposes giving the Minister of Industry “clear authority to establish a regime that would include the ability to impose insurance and indemnification requirements for space activities”. It asks about alternative financial instruments, “surety bonds, parent company guarantees, letters of credit or other securities”, and about measures to reduce costs, including “limits on operator liability (e.g., government backstops for tail risks/catastrophic losses)”.

The paper also asks a more practical question: what insurance Canadian companies actually buy, and whether in-space activities can be insured at all. That is the right question. As our space insurance explainer describes, the whole launch and in-orbit insurance market is small and has only recently returned to thin profitability. An insurance mandate that cannot be met in that market would become a barrier to licensing rather than a safeguard.

For comparison, the United States protects launch licensees with a federal payment mechanism for third-party claims above their required insurance, under 51 U.S.C. 50915, though payment depends on appropriations and the scheme covers launch and re-entry, not satellite operations. If Canada offers a backstop for in-space activities, it would be going further than its southern neighbour.

Security, sustainability and a single window

On security, ISED is considering security assessments of applications with other departments, licence conditions including prohibitions and mandatory incident reporting, inspection and investigatory powers, suspension and cancellation, and emergency authorities. On sustainability, it wants powers over mission design, debris mitigation, collision avoidance, active debris removal and end-of-life disposal, with reference to the Artemis Accords and the UN Long-term Sustainability Guidelines.

The final proposal is a “single window”: one intake point and a coordinated review across departments, even where several approvals remain legally separate. ISED asks whether applicants should be able to opt out and go to each regulator directly.

How it compares

ISED places Canada between two models. It names New Zealand, Italy and the United Kingdom as countries with centralised, comprehensive space legislation, and the United States as a “multi-agency model”, noting the US Office of Space Commerce’s voluntary Space Commerce Certification for novel in-space activities. Our piece on who regulates space in the US shows how that split works in practice; the UK’s Space Industry Act 2018 is one of the comprehensive regimes ISED has in mind.

My reading is that option one would put Canada closer to the UK camp, with one minister and one statute for most in-space activity, while keeping launch in a separate transport regime. A binding mission licence would also give Canada something the United States still lacks: a mandatory authorisation for activities such as servicing and debris removal, rather than a voluntary certificate.

What I would watch

The first is the choice between the two options. The comprehensive Act depends on Global Affairs giving up the remote sensing regime and on ISED’s spectrum licensing staff letting go of debris conditions. Watch how industry submissions treat the move of remote sensing out of Foreign Affairs.

The second is the financial responsibility section. A clear statutory cap or government backstop would make Canada attractive for novel missions; a bare power to impose insurance, with the numbers left to regulations, would leave operators guessing for years.

The third is Bill C-28. The Space Act is designed to start where launch ends, so its definitions depend on the launch bill’s. If C-28 stalls or is amended in committee, the seam between the two regimes moves too.

The fourth is timing. Comments close on 21 December 2026, and ISED has promised further consultation before any regulatory measure. A bill in 2027 would be fast. Operators planning Canadian missions should assume today’s licences remain the rules for some time.

Anuj KumarEditor-in-Chief

Anuj Kumar is the founder of Legal Desire Media and publishes Fashion Law Journal and Space Law Journal.

Space Law Journal is a joint initiative of Legal Desire Media and Odyogeek. Spotted something we got wrong, or want to respond? Write to space@legaldesire.com.