This interview is part of our GoGeomatics series on Canada’s sovereignty, space policy, and the procurement challenges shaping the future of the geospatial sector.

In an era of rising global tensions and shifting alliances, Canada’s continued reliance on foreign-owned space infrastructure — especially from the U.S. and Europe — raises urgent questions about sovereignty, resilience, and credibility. While countries like the U.K., Australia, and India are investing in space as a strategic asset, Canada remains without a coherent national strategy, and without a plan to give back.

Adam Keith knows this landscape well. A Canadian space and Earth observation expert and former Managing Director at Euroconsult (now Novaspace), for which he remains an affiliate, a leading global consultancy focused on the space sector, he helped build the firm’s EO practice and led its North American operations. He has spent over two decades advising global governments, space agencies, and industry leaders on how to align space infrastructure with national priorities. Adam also works closely with the Canadian space industry and is an advisor to hyperspectral imaging company, Wyvern.

In this wide-ranging conversation, Adam explains why Canada’s dependence on others for wildfire monitoring, Arctic coverage, meteorology, and EO data carries certain risks. From fragmented procurement to the absence of a startup pathway outside central Canada, he outlines the structural gaps that threaten Canada’s relevance in a rapidly evolving global space ecosystem.

But Adam is also clear-eyed about the solution. Canada still has world-class talent and commercial capability. What we lack, he says, is the political will to act like a serious space power. “We can’t just keep consuming. We need to contribute if we want to be taken seriously.”

Excerpts:

How would you describe Canada’s current position in the global space ecosystem?

We need to look at this in two parts: Canada as a government, and Canada as an industry. They’re connected, but distinct.

On the industry side, commercial growth is dynamic. We have cutting-edge space companies across the country — from Nova Scotia to BC. The landscape has evolved, but the sector remains robust.

In the New Space environment, Canada ranks quite high. A few years ago, we had the third-most new space companies globally, and I believe that still holds. The competition has increased, but we’re still in it.

The government side is more complex. It depends on how you define “position.” Is it investment? Technology? Launch capacity? Each tells a different story depending on national priorities.

Maybe the better question is: how do we make the most cost-effective use of public funding in space?

Canada ranked 14^th in 2024 in terms of government  space investment. We focus on specific technologies and niches, but that alone doesn’t define our position in the ecosystem. It’s also worth reiterating we are firmly in the top five for the origin of new space start-ups.

Where do you see the biggest strategic or structural gaps for Canada compared to peers like the UK, Japan, or India?

Canada has some unique attributes — geography being a big one. It’s a huge, sparsely populated country with a lot of resources. Building a national space program here is very different from doing it in a compact country like the UK. In the UK a space incubation centre, the space agency, and ESA centre are all in the same place – but travel times to get there are hardly the same as in Canada!

Plus, that scale creates challenges when trying to craft a coherent national strategy. What works in BC may not apply in Atlantic Canada or the North, policy drivers and needs are not the same. So before asking about “gaps,” we need to ask: what should a national strategy even look like for a country this big and diverse?

Countries like Australia, and India have made real efforts to define that. They’ve developed national space strategies that clearly articulate what space is for, how it serves the population, and what they aim to achieve. Outreach – why is space important? – is still critical.

We don’t have that in Canada. There’s no clear vision that ties together federal departments, provincial roles, and most importantly how space serves Canadian citizens.

Countries – such as Australia – are building a national space strategy that highlight the importance of space-based applications and how space is utilized. Moving the conversation away from launch and going to Mars, to how space supports citizens, businesses, public services etc.

They define priorities, outcomes, and how to get there.

Canada doesn’t have that. Not one that feels comprehensive. And without it, industry can’t align. If companies don’t know the government’s priorities, how can they build solutions that support them?

The lack of a national strategy affects not just direction, but also investment and commercial growth?

Absolutely. The Novaspace white paper put it well: “A robust national space strategy is the foundation of every successful space enterprise.”

That’s exactly right. The U.S. space sector didn’t grow just because space tech was exciting. It grew because the government had a clear strategy, and invested accordingly. They backed it and energized it.

You see the same now in India, Japan, Luxembourg, Australia the U.K. and so on. When countries have clear strategy and messaging, companies respond. They innovate, compete, attract investment.

Canada still has strong private sector capabilities. But the question is: what comes next? The global environment is getting more competitive.

India, for example, recently backed four space startups to help shape its next EO government constellation. The message was simple: “We’re backing you; show us what you can build.” That’s real support. And it drives growth.

We’re not seeing that same clarity in Canada. And this isn’t just a Canadian issue — other former space-leading nations are finding it hard to adapt. But there are others moving fast. If we’re not careful, we’ll fall behind.

There’s no perfect space strategy globally. But one thing all successful nations share is support for their industrial base. They ask: can the private sector meet public needs more cost-effectively? Can it do it better? Or offer something different? There are tangible socio-economic benefits in supporting a strong national space industry to improve public services, serve government, create jobs etc.

In Canada, there’s no clear path for companies to test their solutions with government. No mechanism to see if something works across departments. That’s a major structural gap.

We don’t have centralized procurement for government as in the U.S. For  Earth Observation, there’s no central buyer of data. Departments like Agriculture, Environment, and NRCan all use mostly free datasets like Sentinel or Landsat — but often work in silos. Commercial imagery procurement is limited.

There’s also no small-scale program saying: “Let’s spend $200,000 to test a Canadian solution for wildfire, infrastructure, or emissions.” And then if it works, to move from testing to operational delivery of imagery with dedicated budgets.

With a real strategy that defines national priorities — climate, sovereignty, agriculture — we could fund small pilot contracts to support industry.

That’s how the U.S. and Europe started: test the sensor, see if it works, scale it if it does.

Why do so many small space companies struggle to gain traction with government buyers?

That’s a huge issue. Canadian space SMEs often tell us they have to prove themselves abroad before anyone at home will listen; and even then, it’s a struggle.

The core problem is that there’s no buyer in Canada. Beyond the CSA and a few DND contracts, there’s no central body procuring space data or services. So even if a company succeeds internationally, it rarely translates into domestic traction.

Startups don’t have the time or money to chase opaque RFPs with low odds. And many major contracts go to the same incumbents, because they know the system and are seen as the safe choice.

If you want to help space startups, they don’t need technical advice. They need time, funding, and, above all, a customer.

So, what would a functional Canadian procurement path look like?

First, we need a centralized mechanism to coordinate procurement across departments. Someone has to take ownership of testing and evaluating commercial solutions.

Many federal departments already use Copernicus data. Their needs have been surveyed. The next step is to fund small demo projects and let Canadian companies try meeting those needs. See what works.

Is Shared Services Canada the right body? I don’t know. But someone needs to lead. Departments have tight budgets. They won’t spend $200,000 on a trial without a clear directive and funding. It could be something for the newly formed National Space Council to review. We need a $10 million-a-year framework that identifies needs and lets companies respond. Test. Learn. Grow.

And if something works, we need a customer strategy. Today, even successful pilots can’t scale because departments lack the budget tools to move forward.

Are there risks associated with relying on foreign EO platforms?

Definitely. MODIS is a great example. It has supported  wildfire monitoring capabilities for over 25 years. But it was never meant to be operational. It was always an R&D mission. And now it’s aging out.

Sentinel-3 will replace it for some uses, but it’s a European asset. We don’t control its funding or continuity. We benefit from it, but we’re not part of the governance. If something goes offline or priorities shift, we have no say.

We depend heavily on infrastructure we don’t control — especially satellites operated by the U.S. and Europe. That’s a problem. Not because we think the U.S. will cut us off tomorrow, but because we’re not giving anything back. We only consume with no control over governance of the program.

Most of what we use comes from American taxpayers, not Canadian, It’s not a balanced partnership.

We need to think differently. Instead of just relying on foreign infrastructure, Canada should ask: how do we contribute? How do we build missions that serve our needs—and also offer something back to the global system? That way we maintain a seat at the table, we’re taken seriously, and have a say in wider programs.

What kind of missions would make sense for Canada to lead?

There are two that are no-brainers: the Arctic Observing Mission (AOM) and WildfireSat. Both serve core Canadian needs and would be globally useful.

WildfireSat is already moving ahead in partnership with Orora Tech. It won’t solve all our wildfire challenges, but it’s a critical piece of the data puzzle, and that same data could help other countries.

We should invest in missions like that — projects that make us a provider, not just a consumer.

Another smart option is a highly elliptical orbit (HEO) satellite program, Arctic Observing Mission (AOM) – HEO technology was previously considered through the Polar Communications and Weather mission, with the “communications” element becoming a DND mission. However, we also stand to gain much from the “weather” component.

Geostationary satellites sit over the equator, and their coverage drops off above 60-65 degree latitude. That’s most of the Canadian North. HEO satellites fill that gap, providing real-time weather, connectivity, and even space weather data.

The value — for forecasting, safety, sovereignty, and transportation — is massive. It would directly benefit Canadians and make a meaningful contribution to global meteorological systems.

With Canada committing to new defence and infrastructure funding, is space finally being included?

I’m not sure. I haven’t seen strong signals yet. That said, Arctic sovereignty was a major policy priority a decade ago, but it has since faded. Now, with Russia’s actions and China calling itself a “near-Arctic state,” it’s coming back.

Look at Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Their Arctic strategies now encompass national security, improved telecommunications, and maritime domain awareness.

And the only way to deliver all of that? Space.

What would a meaningful 5-year roadmap look like for Canada’s space capability?

Hopefully, the National Space Council will take a leading role. Space Canada too has the support of industry. The Space Council was announced last year, but we haven’t seen clear action. Someone needs to coordinate across departments — NRCan, ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada), DND (Department of National Defence) — and launch small demo contracts to test what Canadian companies can deliver.

Second, we need to support startups. Most feel lost, especially outside Quebec and Ontario. In places like BC or Alberta, there’s often no connection to CSA.

The CSA commissioned the Doyletech Report, which proposed regional nodes across five areas: Prairies, Atlantic, Pacific, Quebec, and Ontario. These could link companies to CSA, funding, experts, and mentorship using existing incubators. But it hasn’t happened yet.

There’s no dedicated space incubator in Canada. CDL (Creative Destruction Lab) offers some support and Canadian companies have benefitted from its mentorship, but it is not specific to space.  There could be a way to link the “nodes” to local tech incubators.

Canada is also a member of ESA, but yet it does not host an ESA BIC (business incubation center) that could be another option… even to host multiple BICS across the country.

We need to decentralize. Space companies exist across the country, but they feel disconnected from national space activitys. Let’s connect them to CSA. Help refine their roadmaps, build product-market fit, and create a clear path to procurement. That doesn’t mean funding everyone. But it does mean backing those who can deliver value.

We’ve done it before — with radar, robotics, and space broadband. I bias here towards EO, but why not new niches in wildfire monitoring, Arctic weather, or the focus of upcoming commercial EO companies – hyperspectral (Wyvern), high-coverage monitoring (Earth Daily Analytics) or emissions monitoring (GHGSat) . These matter to Canada — and to the world. Let’s lead again.