Transformative Indigenous Procurement Strategy (TIPS): what we learned report

Insights from Indigenous voices, policy pathways forward, co-development table policy direction

Phase 1: Pre-engagement and relationship building

In this phase, ISC, through the TIPS directorate began engagement planning with Indigenous Peoples and organizations, as well as with federal departments and agencies that share similar mandates. Key activities included identifying potential partners, building relationships and formalizing working relationships, building awareness and visibility at conferences and tradeshows, determining various stakeholders' engagement preferences and developing an engagement strategy/plan.

There were 9 service-based agreements, called Regional Guide Agreements, established to secure engagement services from Indigenous partners with regional insight and visibility. Regional Guide Agreements were put in place with the below organisations to provide advice on and during engagements as well as to independently run engagements:

• Aboriginal Financial Officers Association (AFOA)
• Canadian Council for Indigenous Business (CCIB)
• First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Economic Development Commission (FNQLEDC) 
• Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers (CANDO)
• Indigenous Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Manitoba
• Joint Economic Development Initiatives (JEDI)
• Kativik Regional Government (KRG)
• Mi'kmaq Alsumk Mowimsikik Koqoey Association (MAMKA) 
• Ontario First Nation Economic Development Association (OFNEDA)

Further, strategic alignments were made with four existing Indigenous-GC tables, to align efforts and share expertise. A TIPS representative participated at the following tables:

• Indigenous Reference Group (IRG)
• 5% Indigenous Working Group Tiger Team
• Inuit-Crown-Partnership-Committee Permanent Bilateral Mechanism (ICPC)
• Canada-Métis-Nation Permanent Bilateral Mechanism (CMN)

Federal partnerships were established with both Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) and Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC). Collaboration with CIRNAC involved its Modern Treaties, Consultation, and Intergovernmental Relations Sector (MTCIRS), as well as regional offices, to support outreach, engagement, and co-development efforts related to modern treaties. Coordination with PSPC's Indigenous Procurement Policy Directorate (IPPD) and Procurement Assistance Canada (PAC) regional offices, involved aligning and jointly participating in engagement sessions and events to streamline outreach, reduce duplication, and reinforce consistent messaging across departments.

Significant effort went into rights-holders' outreach and pre-engagement, rights-holders meaning those that are identified to a community that is recognized and holds' Indigenous rights under section 35 of the constitution, a Modern Treaty or Self-Government Agreement. Outreach was conducted by CIRNAC, ISC and PSPC via email on three separate occasions: October 2022, February 15, 2023, and August 11, 2023. Connections with rights-holders were also made through existing Indigenous-GC tables and relationships, TIPS Regional Guides, at conferences and tradeshows attended by TIPS representatives, and at TIPS engagement sessions. In total 100 emails were sent out to rights-holders and approximately 30 distinct Indigenous nations/cultural groups participated in targeted individual engagements, list available in appendix 5. Please note this number and list is not exhaustive, as other rights-holding Indigenous nations/cultural group members or representatives may have been engaged during larger regional and national events and sessions where attendance was not tracked. Indigenous nations/cultural groups in rights-negotiations with Canada were also included in engagements.

Lastly, during this phase TIPS representatives participated in 20 in-person events, 6 in the Pacific region and in the Ontario region respectively, 3 in the Quebec region, 2 in the Prairie region and the Territories respectively and 1 in the Atlantic region. First Nation participants attended approximately 60% of the events (12 events), Inuit participants attended roughly 55% of the events (11 events) and Métis participants participated in about 45% of the events (9 events.) Although networking and relationship building was the primary focus of attending these events, as well as introducing the TIPS initiative and presenting on the mandatory minimum 5% Indigenous procurement target, TIPS representatives took the opportunity to record observations and feedback from participants on these topics for consideration in TIPS planning and co-development. For a full list of conferences and tradeshows attended, see appendix 1.

Phase 2: Engagement and consultations

During this phase, ISC, through the TIPS directorate and supported by regional guides, Indigenous partners, and federal departments and agencies, engaged with a wide range of participants across all regions and Indigenous distinctions, several economic sectors, and from various governance structures ensuring an inclusive and representative foundation for the TIPS.

Participants included representatives from:

• National Indigenous organizations
• Indigenous organizations with technical expertise in economic development
• Indigenous rights-holders and their delegates
• Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs

Engagement session topics, themes, and concepts were drawn from previous research and reports, such as the "Online engagement on Indigenous procurement modernization 2019 what we learned" report and PAC's various reports on procurement barriers. Additional input came from the Indigenous Reference Group (IRG), a forum for the GC and Indigenous Peoples to discuss Indigenous procurement topics. Pre-engagement meetings and initial engagements also helped shape the focus areas, ensuring alignment with stakeholder interests and requested topics, themes, and concepts.

Engagements were held in various formats, from one-on-one engagements to larger group engagements, taking place at Indigenous-GC tables, conferences and tradeshows, and targeted sessions. Most sessions (60% at 33 sessions) were offered in-person, and 18 sessions (33% of engagements) were offered virtually. Only 2 sessions were delivered in a hybrid model.

A total of 54 engagement sessions were conducted, with attendance data available for 38 of them, representing 422 confirmed participants. Based on an average of 10 participants per session, it is estimated that over 550 individuals took part overall. First Nation participants attended approximately 82% of all the engagement sessions held (44 session), Inuit participants attended roughly 15% of sessions (8 sessions, plus 11 ICPC meetings discussing federal procurement) and Métis participants participated in about 28% of sessions (15 sessions as well as various one-on-one meetings with the Métis National Council (MNC) and its original^{Footnote 1} five governing members. Meetings with individual Métis recognized rights-holders continued post withdrawals of Métis representative organizations from MNC throughout 2022 to 2024.

Between 8 and 10 sessions were offered per region: Prairie region (10 sessions), Pacific and Atlantic regions (9 sessions respectively), Ontario and Quebec regions (8 sessions respectively plus 2 in the National Capital Region (NCR) region) and 6 sessions throughout the Territories.

The objective of this phase was to listen to Indigenous voices impacted by federal procurement strategies, explore ideas and relationships related to Indigenous participation in procurement, and learn from participants about their opinions, concerns, and priorities. Engagement sessions also focused on brainstorming what transformation could look like from the perspective of participants and identifying potential co-development processes needed to shape TIPS. A strong emphasis was placed on understanding the barriers, concerns, and challenges Indigenous Peoples face in accessing federal procurement opportunities. In addition to open and targeted discussions on several topics, valuable insights were gathered from presentations, panels, workshops, and training sessions related to Indigenous procurement.

The main focus areas touched on during the engagement sessions included most commonly, IBD and other business definitions, which were discussed at 87% of engagements (47 sessions). This was the most popular topic amongst all three-distinction group participants, discussed at 88% of Inuit participating sessions, 61% of First Nation and 60% of Métis participating sessions. At a close second was the topic of the PSIB and other policy and programs. This topic was discussed at 80% of engagements (43 sessions). It was covered in 88% of Inuit participating sessions, 60% of Métis and 57% of First Nation participating sessions. the topics of co-development, data and reporting and Indigenous-led procurement organizations were discussed at a little over 20% of engagements (15, 16, and 10 sessions respectively.) These topics were most popular amongst Métis participating sessions being discussed at 20 to 47% of Métis participating sessions, in comparison to 30% of First Nation participating sessions. Of these three topics Inuit participating sessions only touched on the topic of co-development and only in 2 of the Inuit participating sessions, not including ICPC meetings. Other topics also often came up during engagement sessions with 42 sessions recorded as expanding beyond the planned focus areas.

Key findings are presented in the phase 3: analysis of findings section and the engagement results section below. For a full list of engagement session held, refer to appendix 2.

Phase 3: Analysis of findings

Cambium Indigenous Professional Services, a leading Canadian Indigenous consulting firm dealing with Indigenous engagement, was hired by ISC to support the analyse of the TIPS engagement summaries and development of the "TIPS what we learned report: 2022-2024 engagement and consultation summary". Findings identified that the most promising space for transformative change lies where the priorities of Indigenous Self-Governments, the economy and industry, and federal procurement intersect. While some initiatives align across two of these domains, the greatest potential for systemic change emerges when all three converge. This tri-sector alignment offers a unique opportunity to improve outcomes for Indigenous businesses and communities through coordinated, inclusive procurement reform.

From the engagement meeting summaries, three strategic focus areas, also known as transformation pillars, were identified.

Service transfer: Focused on advancing Indigenous-led delivery of services, this pillar includes sub-elements such as Indigenous business definitions, directory management, certification, outreach, capacity building, compliance, and dispute resolution. The proposed direction involves transferring responsibility to Indigenous-led procurement organizations, with considerations around accountability, registry coexistence, and transition planning. This aligns with UNDA action items related to self-determination, service design and delivery, and Indigenous institutional recognition.

Socio-economic procurement measures: This pillar emphasizes embedding equity into federal procurement through mechanisms like limited bidding, points-based evaluations, bid bonding, and mandated procurement conditions. Key considerations include policy thresholds, regional distinctions, and regulatory alignment. Related UNDA action items include removing economic barriers and supporting Indigenous women entrepreneurs.

Data and information: Aimed at strengthening transparency and Indigenous data sovereignty, this pillar includes sub-elements such as planning data, performance metrics, contracting outcomes, participation tracking, and long-term impact assessment. The proposed direction is to explore roles and responsibilities between GC and Indigenous-led organizations, with considerations around data governance, access, and system alignment. This supports UNDA commitments to Indigenous-led data strategies and respectful data sharing.

These pillars intersect with existing federal policies, programs, and legislative frameworks, including the PSIB, the Directive on the Management of Procurement, Modern Treaty obligations, and international trade agreements. While some areas offer flexibility for reform, others, such as the Financial Administration Act and trade agreements, pose limitations that require careful navigation.

Engagement findings also emphasized the need to assess feasibility early, recognizing that lower-complexity changes may affect internal systems and procedures, while higher-complexity changes often require legislative amendments, new funding, and extensive consultation. Low-complexity sub-elements were preliminarily assessed as: Indigenous business definitions, directory management and certification, Indigenous limited bidding, points-based bid evaluation, optimized planning information, and procurement performance metrics. Medium-complexity sub-elements were preliminarily assessed as: outreach and engagement, capacity building, bid bonding support, location-based contracting outcomes, and procurement participation metrics. High-complexity sub-elements were preliminarily assessed as: compliance and monitoring, dispute resolution mechanisms, long-term socio-economic impact tracking, and data ownership and governance.

In addition to identifying structural opportunities for transformation, engagement findings also highlighted key policy considerations that must be addressed to ensure future procurement reforms are inclusive, effective, and responsive to Indigenous business realities. Specifically, future policy needs to:

• recognize community-led business lists and definitions
• benefit Indigenous businesses
• understand the distinct context of Indigenous businesses
• make timely and relevant data available
• address challenges of access to capital for example sureties and bonding
• increase cultural awareness among procurement officials
• build knowledge and expertise to navigate federal procurement

These findings provide a roadmap for co-development, highlighting where transformation is most viable and where further collaboration is needed to address policy gaps, strengthen intergovernmental relations, and advance reconciliation through procurement.

Phase 4: Co-development

In support of this phase, a co-development table (the table) was formed in April 2024, including over 40 federal and Indigenous members. Initially chaired by ISC the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) and the Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers (CANDO) were nominated as co-chairs in 2025. The purpose of the table is to provide an avenue for meaningful and informed discussions on longer-term transformation of the GC's Indigenous procurement policies, guidance, reporting requirements, and operations. As well as the co-development of policy options that align with Indigenous perspectives and aim to improve socio-economic outcomes for Indigenous businesses and communities. A list of the table member organizations is available in the table terms of reference in appendix 4.

Table meetings are scheduled to occur quarterly, with the possibility of ad hoc meetings as required. Throughout fiscal year 2024 to 2025, the table met 7 times, focusing on: aligning TIPS outcomes with what was learned during TIPS engagements, verifying and validating engagement results and findings analysis, better understanding federal procurement processes and policies and setting table direction and priorities. The service transfer pillar was identified as the table's focus area resulting in deep dives on topics such as Indigenous business definitions, IBD management and transfer/devolution to Indigenous Peoples, single-window data lake feasibility, Indigenous-led procurement organizations and more. For more information on the table meetings and outcomes see appendix 6.

Context and challenges leading into Indigenous stakeholder engagements

During the initial meetings, it became evident that participants had varying levels of familiarity with existing procurement processes and the PSIB. Recognizing this disparity, ISC shifted its focus to ensure that the materials provided were tailored to the participants' knowledge levels. At times this resulted in a session's focus shifting towards information sharing and training opportunities, especially when economic development or community representatives participated. As such ISC worked diligently to build further engagement opportunities involving business owners with procurement experience.

Another challenge was the level of reservations and general sense of skepticism and weariness Indigenous businesses and stakeholders had when collaborating with the federal government. This is particularly evident in the context of procurement, where repeated engagements without tangible outcomes have occurred resulting in engagement fatigue and a sense of disillusionment. Many Indigenous stakeholders feel there is a lack of confidence and insufficient evidence that the federal government can fulfill its commitments. These factors heavily influenced the TIPS approach, emphasizing the need to build credibility and demonstrate reliability from the outset.

Engagement participants consistently made comments reflecting the lack of trust in federal government processes and policy. For example:

• the federal government's method of calculating spending tends to overstate the actual benefit resulting to Indigenous communities and business owners
• the procurement process is intentionally complex to ensure Indigenous bidders are unable to navigate the bid process effectively and win the work where we are capable and cost competitive
• the use of a business list verified by the federal government is colonial in nature and does not allow for Indigenous communities to define the best evaluation of Indigenous benefit in the strategy

What we learned: Procurement Strategy for Indigenous Business

"PSIB is a promising initiative that can drive economic growth for Indigenous communities. Incorporating more Indigenous perspectives throughout the strategy process, would ensure that the system better supports Indigenous participation and delivers meaningful economic benefits."

The main topic of conversation during the engagement sessions was the current PSIB. Engagement participants stressed that the PSIB has ‘great value' and potential for both Indigenous businesses, communities, and Peoples. The PSIB is considered a viable path to economic wealth and prosperity for Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Participants support the current PSIB for the following reasons:

• the mandatory minimum 5% Indigenous procurement target, often referred to as the floor not the ceiling, is a significant economic opportunity that can create more financial prosperity for Indigenous communities, Peoples, and individuals across Canada
• The PSIB sets a minimum standard for other procurement strategies in the country including corporate Canada, provincial and territorial governments, municipalities
• when Indigenous businesses win bids, they get noticed in the market, which helps them earn more money beyond the initial contract
• set-aside contracts for Indigenous businesses were considered a positive step to help build Indigenous business capacity and financial growth
• set-aside contracts, at times, reduce competition for contracts
• joint ventures can increase Indigenous participation in federal procurement for both community owned businesses and entrepreneurs
• subcontracting opportunities in federal procurement create access for some Indigenous businesses to participate in procurement

A key takeaway from the engagement is that Indigenous participants are supportive of a strategy that actively promotes inclusion in the federal procurement process. There is support for the mandatory minimum 5% Indigenous procurement target as a floor, not a ceiling. Although it was clear there were and are a lot of confusion with this target and its scope. Several engagement participants felt that the proportion of federal procurement with Indigenous businesses should increase considerably for federal government spending in Indigenous communities, on treaty lands, or on projects that impact the livelihood or rights of Indigenous Peoples. Engagement participants also considered voluntary and mandatory set-asides, joint ventures and subcontracting to be viable mechanisms that have all been used by Indigenous businesses with positive results.

Although the notion of the PSIB, and a procurement strategy specific to Indigenous economic interests, was generally supported, there were many criticisms and suggestions for the improvement of the PSIB. The overall design and implementation of the PSIB was generally where the engagement session discussions were the most robust.

Participants shared that federal procurements that are set-aside or intended for Indigenous businesses are hard to match with Indigenous business offerings and capabilities. Indigenous businesses indicated that:

• they do not have the resources needed to search the complex procurement database to find posted opportunities
• they do not have the resources needed to pursue ‘low value procurements' that are solicited by regional or local federal offices
• they do not have the time or expertise to complete and respond to complex bid documents
• the required mandatory experience requirements in bid documents are stated using colonial based qualification systems and do not consider Indigenous ways of knowing or related experience
• ‘lowest bidder wins' procurement processes do not consider the potential socio-economic benefits that may accrue from a higher priced bid from an Indigenous bidder with a unique, more culturally acceptable approach to the project
• larger federal procurements that require multiple areas of expertise are often bundled or packaged in a way that disqualifies Indigenous bidders who are not partnered with other larger businesses

The PSIB's use of joint ventures to include Indigenous participants in federal procurement comes with some unintended pitfalls:

• colonial commercial practices do not always align well with Indigenous business value and social systems resulting in negative experiences in bidding and or executing projects
• non-Indigenous businesses do not always share the commitment to community benefit and social outcomes desired by the Indigenous partner
• non-Indigenous partners use Indigenous businesses to help win contracts with little input or financial benefit going to the Indigenous partner
• non-Indigenous partners' limit opportunities for financial gain by leading the operations and giving little power to the Indigenous partner to execute contracts or lead bids. The cost in human and financial resources to support large bids through a joint venture is prohibitive for the Indigenous entity
• several engagement participants believed that a well-designed joint venture agreement with Indigenous-led social benefits would be more effective than an individual entrepreneur ‘selling their Status' for simple financial compensation

There was a strong perception that the PSIB is only fully utilized in high dollar value projects in communities and Indigenous benefits and spending are only a small part of these projects. With participants indicating the PSIB needs to be used more when significant investments are being made that impact Indigenous lands and rights. This finding refers to any participation tool that should be utilized beyond Comprehensive Land Claim Area (CLCA) requirements

It was also shared that when procurements consider local Indigenous content, economic development officers and community development corporations face capacity issues in supporting local Indigenous businesses and providing links to the community. Indigenous communities need an increase in financial resources to support programs such as the PSIB. Indigenous business provided the idea of an Indigenous community, federal government supported, ‘pursuit fund,' to provide entrepreneurs with financial support to actively participate in the PSIB and pursue federal contracts and financial support for bid development.

Finally, there were many comments from engagement participants pertaining to the adaptability and spirit of the Indigenous entrepreneur. The PSIB or an alternative Indigenous procurement strategy is supported and desired. A comment to be noted was that whatever the strategy is, Indigenous entrepreneurs will take part, learn how to succeed, and will achieve economic benefit over time. However, the more complex and colonial the strategy, the more it impacts our ability to participate and attain economic benefit from the system. The more Indigenous voices in the federal strategy process, from bid preparation through to review, the better the system will be for Indigenous inclusion in the procurement processes.

The engagements indicated that a version of the PSIB is desired, warranted and will lead to successful economic outcomes for the Indigenous Peoples in Canada. The inclusion of Indigenous entrepreneurial voices in the development process is desired and required. This will ensure that procurement participation by Indigenous Peoples will be more robust, drive tangible Indigenous benefit, and allow for economic prosperity. It can also be noted that many of the desired changes to the PSIB or issues noted with federal procurement could be addressed by more robust accountability, managed through strong IPP embedded in contract terms.

What we learned: Directed contracts

"It is challenging to participate in procurement because low-value contracts, which could be a vital entry point for us, are not known."

Engagement participants also offered their viewpoints on directed contracting, in other words sole sourcing, identifying direct contracting as a lost opportunity for Indigenous participation in procurement. During engagement sessions where education was a component, that is to say where participants learned the sole sourcing contract value limits, participants shared that low value contracts could be a possible avenue for smaller Indigenous enterprises. At several engagements, Indigenous businesses and organizations discussed the United States of America's (USA) framework which allows more opportunities for directed contracts to minority owned businesses. Key takeaways from those discussions included:

• as most low-value opportunities are not openly tendered; it is difficult to participate as a small business without dedicated resources actively pursuing the opportunities
• the low-value contracts were still at dollar values that would make a significant difference for their businesses
• for those that have been awarded direct contracts already, their businesses have benefitted, grown, and had easier access to subsequent contracts
• the IBD does not provide information or access to direct contracts
• local/regional federal procurement officers are not aware that direct purchasing from Indigenous businesses can be applied to their Indigenous spending targets, or when they were allowed at all

What we learned: Geographic considerations

"We see the geographical diversity of our communities influencing federal policies, but the inability to limit bidding to specific regions makes it hard for us to compete locally."

The primary feedback pertaining to geographic limitations included the desire for the federal government to limit bidding to particular regions and to target a spend geographically. Many participants also talked about the differences in costs of doing business in different regions, such as north vs south, and how there is no consideration for this factor in bidding. Geographic based discussions often overflowed into distinction-based approach discussions.

It was commented that regional participation is generally left to industry through the IPP processes. Although a mechanism that has reported success in geographic inclusion, there is distrust in the reporting as well as a perceived misalignment of what the community should receive as part of the IPP. Engagement participants feel that local Indigenous voices should be included in the development and review of reporting of the IPP metrics and deliverables. This inclusion will better align the project outcomes with community, geographical based needs and desires.

Engagement participants raised an additional point that Indigenous companies build relationships with federal departments, agencies and heads of programs and projects within the local federal government offices. This relationship is trusted and active and would be stronger if directed procurement could be used to keep the contracts within the local community, beyond low-value opportunities. The federal government's procurement principle prioritizes competition, and engagement participants believe that this is not always the best approach or outcome for Indigenous businesses and Peoples.

What we learned: Indigenous business definitions

"Indigenous organizations should handle these verifications, as they understand and respect our identities better than the government does."

Having the federal government define Indigeneity for inclusion in procurement was considered ‘patronizing and colonial' by engagement participants. The validation of the individual business owner should remain in the Indigenous community, not founded in colonial processes. An engagement participant commented: if, for verification purposes, individuals are asked to provide a status card, most would be ok with that. In instances where they cannot, however, asking for an explanation as to why they do not have one and then determining merit should also be permitted, breaking imposed colonial structure and definitions. Indigenous organizations should be the ones to ask these questions and determine acceptability, given the federal government has a stigma of fear and colonialism and does not leave room for Indigenous acceptance of our own identities.

Most engagement participants were accepting of different methods to validate Indigeneity, but community approval or acceptance, and verification of that approval or acceptance were both necessities. Participants shared that several Indigenous groups and communities have their own citizen business definitions and that community members accept those definitions. Others shared that some nations have also developed and accepted municipal, provincial, and territorial definitions. For example, the Yukon First Nation procurement policy has a business definition for the territorial government, and the Inuit have recently developed one for the federal government. Multiple Indigenous organizations that maintain procurement lists have indicated a more stringent validation process is being developed to ensure intended Indigenous benefits are realized by the intended population.

Engagement participants raised concerns over too many different standards that might not ensure equality in the approval process. It was noted in multiple engagements that participants believed the best alternative would be if one set of standards for federal procurement be maintained for authorized Indigenous businesses eligible for federal government procurement. Specifically, the sentiment was that that list should have a minimum definition of what constitutes a qualified Indigenous business for federal procurement. It was also noted that this list should not be maintained by the federal government. The Indigenous community should manage the list as Indigenous Peoples have a personal stake in ensuring a valid, trusted list of Indigenous businesses that can enter the federal procurement process.

Joint ventures were the only type of business structure discussed amongst engagement participants. The consensus opinion during engagements was that joint ventures need to be explicit in their economic relationships. Definitions of joint ventures need to capture that there is a commitment to a desired Indigenous benefit, expressed and defined by the local Indigenous population. Well defined and designed joint ventures are preferred over joint ventures designed to capture market (or bid points) to primarily benefit non-Indigenous businesses. It was reported that this will require a level of vetting that is not currently present and a mechanism to ensure the benefits promised and provided under the current PSIB mechanisms. For example, the review of corporate documents such as contracts, invoices, deliverables, corporate structure, or minimum content requirements.

Finally, comments were received pertaining to the appeals process if and when a business is determined to not meet the federal government's Indigenous business definition. The comments were twofold. First, Indigenous businesses denied access to procurement because they do not possess colonial documentation were concerned about how they can officially appeal that decision. Their desire is to be heard by an Indigenous audience rather than a federal one, as that is the system that has taken their formal Indigenous certifications. On the other side of the equation, Indigenous businesses may want to appeal a contract award to a business that they claim is not an eligible Indigenous business. A similar appeals process to an Indigenous body would be the preferred process. An Indigenous-led appeals body would be well received by federal Indigenous procurement participants.

What we learned: Indigenous Business Directory

"The IBD offers limited meaningful opportunities. A non-government entity managing the directory would provide more relevant opportunities for our business development."

The IBD is currently used as a business assessment tool and screening mechanism to determine the PSIB eligibility. All businesses that would like to be considered for an award of a limited tender under the PSIB are required to be registered in the IBD or listed on a Modern Treaty business directory or list.

ISC's control of the IBD presents a barrier according to engagement participants. Comments identifying how ISC managing the directory poses a concern for those engaged included:

• engagement participants were concerned that their First Nation based small business may become tied to other federal departments and agencies such as the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
• participants may already be listed on another Indigenous managed directory, their trusted space for their information and do not want their information held by the federal government
• the federal government collects too much information in the directory, more than required to make an eligibility decision for access to the PSIB
• participation on the IBD has not yielded any relevant, meaningful opportunities to learn about or participate in Indigenous procurement

Engagement participants feel the IBD has little perceived value to those on the list, unless a company has already been awarded a contract, and the federal government needs to validate the Indigeneity of a business.

Multiple comments were received that businesses already belong to certified Indigenous business lists that validate their identity. The CCIB was referred to as the Indigenous leader in this space on several occasions. Others commented that they are certified by the Canadian Aboriginal Minority Supplier Council (CAMSC) for marketing purposes even though the Council is not Indigenous. Multiple participants also mentioned the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association (NACCA)'s First Nation Procurement Organization (FNPO) and its plans for an Indigenous managed First Nation Business Certification and Directory as another model to consider. NACCA's announcement of an FNPO, in early 2024, resulted in many engagements, especially amongst First Nation participants, touching on how the GC and NACCA work aligns and thoughts about Indigenous-led procurement organizations. The announcement also spurred interest among Métis participants and other Indigenous groups, leading to conversations about the potential development of a comparable Métis Procurement Organization, funding for independent business registries, and related initiatives. The prevailing sentiment is that Indigenous-led certification and business verification, when provided by Indigenous-led organizations, would not limit access to federal procurement opportunities. On the contrary, it is seen as fostering greater trust and credibility than the current IBD.

Many businesses noted that they join procurement lists for marketing and business development purposes. To share their information with people that will search through and use the list. Participants shared that with an outside organization, non-government entity, managing the directory, permissions can be granted, and privacy can be managed in a way that is more conducive to developing business. External directory management would also ensure the directory is maintained and scheduled updates and validation can be conducted more regularly.

While some engagement participants suggested using a single Indigenous organization to manage business lists, several engagement participants expressed a strong preference for distinction-based and treaty-based lists, specifically mentioning organizations such as Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), MNC, and MMF. Modern treaty participants were particularly clear in their desire for their regional or treaty lists to be used exclusively, without the involvement of third parties unless they are seamlessly integrated. Referencing the need to respect the unique identities and agreements of different Indigenous groups in the procurement process and unique relationships with the GC.

There were also some engagement participants that wanted the resources and opportunity to create and maintain their own local and regional list as well. The context for these comments was for micro businesses that can participate in local procurement from time to time. An example provided by participants was in the context of a local part-time catering business who provide local services on an as needed basis. They would like to be on a directory in their local community for situations that match their abilities, for example providing food for a weeklong government event hosted in the First Nation community centre. This type of directory also supports the development of IPPs where direct regional content of approved businesses can be sourced. This also aligns with some engagement participants' sentiments that the focus of Indigenous business lists should shift to meeting community objectives rather than the federal governments. As well as the sentiment that static lists are less effective than traditional marketing practices such as local forums, fireside chats among others. One participant suggested the use of a platform that showcases businesses. The general sentiment is business lists should be an enabler to work within Indigenous communities and to find opportunities.

What we learned: Indigenous Participation Plans

"IPPs need to better incorporate Indigenous ways of knowing and ensure consistent approaches and consequences for prime contractors who do not respect IPPs."

IPP’s were consistently identified as positive mechanisms for local and regional Indigenous businesses. Many constructive suggestions to better the IPP process, content and considerations were also provided. They are detailed below:

What we learned: Data and reporting

"We often don't trust the reported metrics and spend data, as it doesn't always reflect the true benefit we receive. We need greater transparency into contract components including / impacting Indigenous businesses and Peoples."

Transparency in Indigenous pertinent data related to federal opportunities was a common sentiment shared by many engagement participants. Metrics and reporting of spend is not entirely trusted as Indigenous businesses and organizations may not be receiving the benefit of the entire spend. The following was a perspective shared: $10 million spend with a 51% Indigenous owned joint venture is only $5.1 million. This type of approach overstates the true spend with Indigenous Peoples.

Many engagement participants had comments as well as suggestions on data and reporting, including businesses are often unaware of the final bid structures and resulting contracts when subcontracting for and even partnering with non-Indigenous businesses. They often depend on the prime to relay the information. Suggestions included: public posting of contract portions allocated to Indigenous businesses, publishing the values going to Indigenous businesses and publishing the portions of bids and resulting contracts that Indigenous companies are referenced in. A common experience amongst engagement participants was, once an agreement is signed and administrative money invested, the Indigenous businesses often experience radio silence from the prime. Businesses often do not even know if a partner is using their name in bids.

Engagement participants also indicated that to make informed decisions on and to respond to opportunities, businesses and communities would benefit from detailed statistics on participation rates, success ratios, common errors of Indigenous bids and the like. Some businesses even went as far as to indicate if such information were available, they would be more inclined to consider and even participate in federal procurement. Many engagement participants also explained that understanding or receiving targeted procurement and infrastructure plans for upcoming years, would give Indigenous communities and businesses time to prepare and position themselves for upcoming opportunities and therefore make them more likely to bid and participate. This data would help in planning and targeting resources for economic gain. Advance industry days for larger procurements or upcoming projects for example are well received, helping the relationship piece by building trust and awareness (Defence Construction Canada (DCC) cited). Indigenous businesses expressed that what is most helpful is a discussion where businesses can identify, on the spot, the opportunities they are interested in and begin negotiations from there.

Engagement participants highlighted the need for more data on low-value contracts, where sole sourcing is a common procurement process. Many businesses with existing contracts and relationships consistently keep their costs under the low dollar value policy thresholds, making competition in these spaces particularly challenging. Engagement participants also spoke to the value of reporting on planned standing offers and/or supply arrangements coming for renewal ideally 6 months to 1 year out, and the need for consistency among various commodity code requirements in procurement systems including the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) used by the IBD, the United Nations Standard Products and Services Code (UNSPC) used by CanadaBuys, and the Goods and Services Identification Number (GSINs) used by some standing offers and supply arrangements.

In addition to GC provided data the needs in relation to community data was also a topic discussed amongst engagement participants. Better community data would allow communities to provide information regarding capacity in communities to the GC, allowing for the creation of procurement forecasts and strategies that map to the community's capacity, or leverage their capacity as much as possible.

Lastly, engagement participants want a better process for Indigenous businesses to report an open bid tender or Contract that should have been a set-aside. Participants noted that filing a complaint takes too long.

Context

Since 2019, Canada has been working with Indigenous partners to develop an approach that will help Indigenous businesses develop and participate in federal procurement. Initially, work with the Indigenous Reference Group (IRG) was instrumental in the development of the Government of Canada's (Canada) requirements to ensure that at least 5% of the total value of federal contracts is awarded annually to businesses owned and led by Indigenous Peoples. In 2021, Canada was mandated to fully implement this mandatory 5% target by the end of the 2024 to 2025 fiscal year, along with public reporting and a data strategy. At that time, Canada was also mandated to engage with Indigenous partners and co-develop, a transformed approach that will help Indigenous businesses build capacity to participate in federal procurement. Emphasis has been placed on understanding the barriers, concerns and challenges that Indigenous Peoples face in accessing federal procurement. Canada is working with Indigenous partners to address concerns related to Indigenous business registration, definitions of Indigenous businesses, and accountability in the procurement process to ensure that commitments to Indigenous Peoples' participation in contract opportunities are met. In Modern Treaty and historical treaty areas, Canada engages and consults with treaty rights-holders on procurement-related implementation considerations.

Based on the results of engagement and consultation activities since 2022, this joint work has shifted into a co-development stage, to inform policy options for a modernized Indigenous procurement strategy, which respects Canada's UNDA Act and it's resulting Action Plan commitments to upholding UNDRIP.

Purpose and objective

The Transformative Indigenous Procurement Strategy co-development table (the table) will provide its members opportunities for meaningful and informed discussions on a longer-term transformation of Canada's Indigenous procurement strategies (Procurement Strategies), including procurement policies, guidance, reporting and data requirements and operations.

For the purpose of informing the development of a future Memorandum to Cabinet in the next 12 months, members will work together to develop and recommend policy options for Procurement Strategies that are designed in a manner that are consistent with Indigenous Peoples' perspectives and focused on improved socio-economic outcomes for Indigenous businesses, Peoples and communities.

Priority areas: Members will collaborate to prioritize and advance the following areas:

• develop program and policy options that respect distinction-based approaches (First Nations, Inuit, Métis), such as, Indigenous Procurement Plan requirements to increase accountability, updated set-asides and recourse mechanisms
• enhance data strategies and methodologies for procurement reporting and identifying Indigenous business offerings, capacity, interest, availability and capability to meet the contractual requirements
• improve, simplify or develop new policy instruments and procurement measures
• service transfer to Indigenous-led Procurement Organization(s) providing wraparound services and programs, including:
  • promotion of Indigenous procurement, for example reporting, policy reviews
  • relationship building
  • capacity building and educational activities, for example Indigenous procurement training services
  • management of directories or certifications for Indigenous businesses that are verified by Indigenous Peoples recognized by law, such as Bands, Modern Treaty rights-holders, self-governing agreements, court decisions and the like, plus those recognized by policy, that is signed agreements, protocols, accords with the Government of Canada,  in accordance with their existing Modern Treaty, distinctions-based or other related definitions
• roles and responsibilities for government and Indigenous-led procurement organization(s)

Contribution to reconciliation: The TIPS co-development table supports reconciliation by fostering collaboration and mutual respect between the GC and Indigenous Peoples. This approach ensures that Indigenous voices are heard and integrated into the policy-making process, leading to more inclusive and culturally sensitive procurement strategies. By working together, the government and Indigenous communities can create policies that better address the unique needs and challenges of Indigenous businesses, promoting economic growth and self-sufficiency. This collaborative effort helps to build trust, repair relationships, and advance economic reconciliation by providing meaningful opportunities for Indigenous participation in the federal procurement process.

Co-development approach

While Cabinet decisions cannot be predicted, Canada will build on policy advice emerging from the work at the table, and previous consultations and engagements undertaken since 2021.

Work will be guided and informed by the "UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" (UNDRIP), the "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act" (UNDA) and the UN Declaration Action Plan. More specifically the UNDRIP principles of self-determination, participation in decision-making, respect for and protection of culture, equality, and non-discrimination.

Cultural awareness training, developed by the GC or offered by recommended Indigenous knowledge keepers and experts, will be provided to all government representatives involved in the co-development table.

Members will operate under the principles of greater good, collaboration, respect, consensus-seeking, transparency, fairness, partnership, and inclusion.

Specifically, by:

• creating space for the inclusion of Indigenous traditional knowledge and perspectives in the development of procurement policies and practices
• being responsive and flexible and doing the work required to tackle technical challenges
• being honest and transparent about constraints and interests from the outset
• being open to the re-evaluation of perspectives through dialogue and co-operation
• respecting participation of Indigenous stakeholders in decision-making and
• operating by consensus to the extent possible and recording non-consensus views clearly and fairly as applicable:
  • consensus may be achieved via email, where determined by the table to be appropriate, in cases where decision-making is required between meetings or certain members are absent from meetings
  • agenda setting will be done in consultation with table members and with approval of Indigenous co-chairs and
  • speakers and presenters will be selected in consultation as well, determined based on majority interests

Members will operate under the principles of greater good, collaboration, respect, consensus-seeking, transparency, fairness, partnership, and inclusion.

ISC may be required to consult internally on various policy areas, including briefing Treasury Board of Canada Secretariate and Public Services and Procurement Canada on draft content during the process. Table members may participate in these briefings, and the results of these internal-to-government consultations will be shared with table members to address any considerations or challenges raised.

With respect to intellectual property:

UNDRIP Article 21 1. Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.

UNDRIP Article 31 1. Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.

ISC supports Indigenous Peoples' rights to data sovereignty and protection of intellectual property. Indigenous Peoples have the right to develop, control, and protect their data, knowledge, and culture, and how it is shared. In consultation with Indigenous partners, ISC will work to ensure Indigenous Peoples have ownership and control over their intellectual property and ensure protection in accordance with Canada's intellectual property legislative and regulatory frameworks. This could include but is not limited to:

• ensuring that clear agreements that define the ownership and use of IP created during the collaboration are established
• ensuring that any use of Indigenous knowledge is done with the informed consent of the relevant communities and that all contributions are properly documented and
• ensuring that Indigenous knowledge is accurately attributed

With respect to language, all efforts are to be made to ensure that Indigenous languages are respected and supported within the table's processes, including when possible, providing interpretation and translation services and using Indigenous languages in official documents.

Capacity building and knowledge sharing

As and when required, and if available, dedicated resources for capacity building initiatives within Indigenous communities and organizations will be allocated, including funding for scopes of work as directed by the group.

Composition

The table is composed of representatives of National Indigenous Organizations, National Indigenous Economic Organizations, treaty rights-holders, federal government representatives, and other regional and national recipients of ISC funding for engagement on procurement-related issues. Broad participation is being maintained out of respect for rights to self-determination, and to ensure diverse geographic representation and representation from those that have experience or ongoing interests in procurement issues.

Members acknowledge the possibility of expanding the table's participants. As well as where appropriate, smaller teams may be organized to work on specific taskings to develop policy options or other positions for consideration and consensus by the larger table.

The table is not intended to replace consultations, negotiations, or existing relationships between the federal government and members. As such, the table will uphold and abide by the Modern Treaties, Self-Government Agreements, and other agreements reached by the federal government and Indigenous governments and organizations as applicable.

In the context of new policy impacting rights of treaty rights-holders any required consultation protocols identified in the Modern Treaties and/or Self-Government Agreements, will be followed.

Chair

The table will be co-chaired by ISC and by representatives of a nominated Indigenous Organization member. Current co-chairs are Lorne Pelletier, Manitoba Métis Federation and Ray Wanuch, Cando).

Meetings

Frequency: Meetings will be four times per year, or ad hoc as needed, following a forward agenda set out by members.

Location: In-person and/or virtual meetings will be held as per schedule above. In-person meetings will include hybrid options.

Roles and procedures

Secretariat: ISC is to provide the following secretariat support:

• canvassing table members for agenda items, speakers, and/or presentations
• coordination and organization of meetings on a consistent, interval or if required ad hoc, as requested by members
• development of agendas, maintenance of forward agenda items
• development and distribution of records of discussions to members and
• drafting and circulating policy documents or other meeting materials

Communication: Communication with respect to the table shall be directly between members. The Secretariat will coordinate communication with all members, as necessary. Members are free to share materials and research with each other.

Note: Communication and feedback may take various forms beyond formal meetings, as per Indigenous communities and organizations preferences for engagement, such as through anonymous surveys, talking circles, or other culturally appropriate methods.

Activities: Members will engage in working sessions to advance policy options and considerations in priority areas. Members will, to the extent possible, participate in the content development of the Memorandum to Cabinet. As appropriate, reporting on the table's activities and achievements will be shared with both Indigenous communities and/or the broader public.

Monitoring and evaluation: Members, as appropriate and/or requested, will develop an Indigenous-led monitoring and evaluation framework to track progress, identify challenges, and ensure accountability of the workplan.

Dispute resolution: Members will develop a culturally appropriate dispute resolution mechanism to address any conflicts or disagreements.

Members will be provided:

• with complete, accurate and meaningful information in a timely manner
• a reasonable time to make key decisions
• information on potential risks and issues that could impact the project, as they arise
• open and honest discussions and
• where possible will be provided with alternative decision-making processes that align with Indigenous traditions and values, such as the use of talking circles

Term: These Terms of Reference are ongoing until terminated by agreement, and may be amended, varied, or modified in writing after consultation and agreement by members. The expected time period of the co-development table is from April 1, 2024, until March 31, 2026, with a possibility of extension if TIPS is provided with additional funding to continue its work modernizing Indigenous procurement policy.

Government policy leads: ISC, TBS, and PSPC play crucial roles in Indigenous procurement policy. Together, they work to create a more inclusive and equitable procurement process that supports the economic growth and development of Indigenous businesses and Peoples.

TBS is responsible for setting the overall policy framework for federal procurement, including Indigenous procurement. This includes the Directive on the Management of Procurement, which mandates that a minimum of 5% of the total value of contracts be awarded to Indigenous businesses annually. TBS also ensures that procurement policies align with the government's commitments to economic reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples and supports the implementation of these policies across federal departments.

PSPC is tasked with implementing and managing the federal procurement processes, including those related to Indigenous procurement. This involves providing opportunities for Indigenous businesses to participate in federal contracts. PSPC also provides guidance and support to other federal departments on how to incorporate Indigenous procurement into their contracting processes. This includes educating procurement specialists on the benefits of utilizing the PSIB and helping Indigenous businesses enhance their capacity to participate in federal procurement.

ISC plays a supportive role by managing the PSIB, which provides direction on how to set-aside opportunities for Indigenous business; as well as manages the IBD, which is used as a business capacity assessment tool and screening mechanism to determine the PSIB eligibility. Additionally, ISC educates procurement specialists and Indigenous businesses on procurement policies and opportunities, helping to increase visibility and capacity.

Context and challenges leading into co-development

The co-development process was met with several competing priorities which limited members' capacities and the ability to meet as a collective. Specifically, the ISC team experienced a significant rise in media inquiries and letters from Indigenous partners to the Minister of ISC. This coupled with the launch of a Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) investigation and meetings slowed co-development activities. Next, the advancement of the return to cabinet date, by one year, for TIPS proposals and recommendations meant that TIPS resources had to shift focus developing input into federal government decision documents such as the Economic Reconciliation Framework (ERF) Memorandum to Cabinet (MC). Additionally, the passing of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) resolution naming NACCA as the FNPO introduced another layer of consideration for the co-development process. Lastly, the holdback of the ERF, which included many of the same Indigenous partners, and the prorogation of parliament, created an atmosphere of uncertainty around the status and future of TIPS work impacting trust amongst members that this initiative would see benefits. These factors collectively posed significant hurdles, necessitating careful navigation and collaboration to ensure the successful continuation of TIPS co-development.

Direction setting

Members stressed the need to replace the PSIB with a new Indigenous Procurement Policy that ensures equitable outcomes across communities. Simply changing the existing strategy was not considered transformative or sufficient to address needs. The establishment of an Indigenous procurement ombudsperson able to support recourse or appeals was also a significant priority raised outside of the three transformation themes.

Pillar 1: Service transfer

There was overall support from members of the IBD being transferred to an Indigenous organization on the premise that a distinction-based approach would be applied and framework developed. Priority areas included: clear roles and responsibilities, dispute resolution mechanisms, consideration for the varying capabilities and circumstances of different Indigenous communities' business lists and definitions. On the topic of definitions, members feedback was divided on NACCA's proposed business definitions, with many members having issue with components of the definitions drafted particularly related to level of Indigenous experience, participation, and credentials in businesses. Members however, showed an overall interest in CANDO's data model and data lake initiative that was proposed in support of a single-entry point to multiple Indigenous business lists and directories. CANDO's report is available in appendix 7.

Pillar 2: Socio-economic procurement measures

Members supported the development of policy on IPPs and other limited bidding conditions for Indigenous businesses. Specifically, they indicated wanting to: introduce low dollar value thresholds specific to Indigenous businesses, increase bid bonding limits for First Nations contractors, as well as more consideration for Indigenous workforce requirements and contract unbundling requirements. Members also emphasized the need to address the various drawbacks of limited bidding and potential backlash, as well as the nuances of overlapping land claim preferential procurement approaches.

Pillar 3: Data and information

Members voiced their disappointment with data limitations in reporting, specifically  reporting requirements on subcontracts, and the need for better data on the economic impacts of procurement measures. Priority areas included: distinction-based data, timely and accurate data, data on the portion of contracts that are going specifically to Indigenous businesses and economies, and data on the Indigenous business landscape. A need for monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for the mandatory minimum 5% Indigenous procurement target] was also a priority and specifically the need to separate Indigenous entrepreneurs in relation to development corporations in the measurement of it's success rate.