Indigenous participation in Canadian defence procurement can begin with a shared opportunity that Indigenous and industry parties each assess against their own interests, priorities, capabilities, and responsibilities. Coming together around that opportunity does not require either side to fit a predetermined role. It begins with the parties deciding whether there is a reason to work together and, if so, what each is prepared and authorized to contribute.
The result can take several forms. An Indigenous business might compete as a prime contractor, join a qualifying joint venture, or supply goods or services at another tier. Parties might explore a commercial relationship, workforce activity, training, engagement, or capability development. A procurement might also contain a formal Indigenous participation requirement or criterion. More than one form can coexist around the same opportunity, but none should be assumed.
Built Together means starting with a real opportunity, enabling the affected and authorized Indigenous and industry parties to identify themselves, and defining a contribution that each party chooses, understands, and has authority to make.
This is Kaskitew-Maskwa’s practical interpretation, not a Government of Canada definition or a universal model. Kaskitew-Maskwa does not speak for an Indigenous or industry party and does not decide procurement eligibility, evaluation, consent, authority, or contract compliance.
One opportunity can bring together different forms of participation
A single defence opportunity may involve several connected forms:
- Supplier participation: an Indigenous business may pursue work as a prime contractor, eligible joint-venture participant, subcontractor, or supplier at another tier where the opportunity and governing documents permit.
- Workforce participation: parties may identify career awareness, recruitment, applications, employment, retention, or progression activities connected to actual or anticipated work.
- Training and skills development: training may help prepare people for defined work or form part of a workforce pathway.
- Engagement: a specific Indigenous Nation, community, government, rights holder, organization, business, or individual may choose whether and how to take part within its own authority, priorities, and capacity.
- Partnership or another business relationship: parties may define a commercial or working relationship, their respective contributions, and how decisions and information will be handled.
- Capability development: a business may examine technical, quality, commercial, documentation, supply-chain, workforce, or security-related questions connected to an opportunity.
- Accountability and evidence: parties may agree what they need to record, who may use the information, and how accurately to describe progress.
- Formal procurement requirements: a live solicitation or contract may establish criteria, commitments, evidence, or reporting that must be addressed on its own terms.
These are possibilities, not a sequence or a checklist. One opportunity may involve supplier work and workforce activity. Another may involve a joint venture and capability development. Another may begin with discussion and lead to no agreement. The right combination depends on the opportunity and the choices and authorities of the parties involved.
What coming together can look like in practice
Kaskitew-Maskwa’s practical model is to make the opportunity and the parties’ decisions visible before designing activities.
1. Start with the actual opportunity
The parties need enough shared information to understand what is being explored. That can include the work, timing, location, expected role, known procurement requirements, and questions that remain open. A general interest in collaboration is different from a live procurement, confirmed work package, job opening, or awarded contract.
2. Let the affected and authorized parties identify who belongs
“Indigenous” and “industry” are not single parties. Participants might include an Indigenous-owned business, a Nation or community economic-development organization, a rights holder, an individual, a prime contractor, a supplier, an employer, or a training provider. Their roles and authorities are not interchangeable. The affected and authorized parties—not Kaskitew-Maskwa—determine who belongs in a conversation, whether they will participate, and who may speak or make commitments on their behalf.
3. Identify what each party can contribute
Each party may identify a commercial, organizational, workforce, technical, or other contribution that advances its own objectives and the shared opportunity. These possibilities do not assign duties or treat Indigenous knowledge, people, relationships, or authority as inputs available to another party. The parties themselves define what they choose to contribute and whether the proposed exchange is worthwhile.
4. Choose the participation forms that fit
The parties can name which forms they are considering and how they connect. For example, a supplier relationship might coexist with workforce recruitment and training. A joint venture might include capability development and agreed evidence responsibilities. Engagement may inform whether a separate commercial discussion should proceed. Combining forms does not make them equivalent; it helps the parties see the whole opportunity without turning one activity into proof of another.
5. Put decisions, evidence, and boundaries in the right hands
The parties can record who decides the commercial relationship, work allocation, hiring, training, public statements, information use, and other commitments. If a procurement requirement applies, the current notice, solicitation, amendments, contract, official guidance, and responsible authority control. If Indigenous authority, governance, consent, or representation is relevant, it remains with the specific authorized Indigenous party and its applicable process.
6. Describe the status accurately
A useful status might be exploring, proposed, agreed, active, delivered, reported, accepted, verified, or measured. Those words should not be exchanged casually. Accurate status protects every party and makes the next decision clearer.
Three illustrations of forms working together
The following illustrations show how forms could coexist. They are not project examples, promises, or recommended structures.
A supplier opportunity with workforce activity
An Indigenous business and an industry contractor might explore a defined supply requirement. Alongside the commercial discussion, they might identify workforce needs and possible training connected to the work. Supplier eligibility, the commercial agreement, training participation, and employment decisions would still be separate decisions supported by separate evidence.
A joint venture with capability development
Parties might consider a joint venture for an opportunity where the applicable criteria can be met. They could also identify capability-development work, responsibilities for bid preparation, and records needed for the relationship. Indigenous Services Canada’s current Indigenous Business Directory guidance describes ownership and control criteria, including a general requirement for at least 51% Indigenous beneficial ownership and control, and addresses joint ventures where applicable criteria are met. The current guidance and live procurement documents—not the label “joint venture”—determine what must be demonstrated.
Engagement alongside a commercial pathway
An industry party might engage with a specific Indigenous Nation, community, government, rights holder, or organization while separately exploring work with an Indigenous business. Those relationships may inform one another, but engagement with one person, business, or organization does not automatically establish collective consent, representation, endorsement, or authority. Each relationship proceeds through the parties authorized to make its decisions.
Where Government of Canada mechanisms fit
Government mechanisms can shape an opportunity, but they do not replace the parties’ need to understand the live documents.
The Procurement Strategy for Indigenous Business concerns specified set-aside procurements for qualified Indigenous businesses. The federal minimum target for contracts awarded to Indigenous businesses is an annual departmental measure, not a requirement that every individual contract contain the same target. Indigenous Services Canada’s Indigenous Business Directory guidance addresses registration criteria; directory registration does not by itself establish the technical, commercial, security, quality, capacity, or documentation requirements of a particular procurement.
The Government of Canada’s current Indigenous Participation Plan criteria template identifies possible criteria such as Indigenous business participation, employment, and training or skills development in its stated context. The template is optional and adaptable; it does not create one universal Indigenous Participation Plan, percentage, or requirement. CanadaBuys states that evaluation criteria and contractor-selection methods are tailored to the specific requirement.
Whether a mechanism or requirement applies, what it means, and what evidence is sufficient must be confirmed from the current official sources, procurement documents, and responsible decision authority. This article does not determine Industrial and Technological Benefits or Canadian Value Proposition treatment.
Keep a few distinctions clear
Collaboration is easier when the parties do not have to correct inflated claims later:
- a discussion or introduction is not an agreement, subcontract, or award;
- directory registration is not proof of capability, responsiveness, security status, compliance, or award;
- training is not necessarily certification, clearance, employment, retention, or progression;
- a business relationship is not automatically community consent, endorsement, representation, or benefit;
- a planned activity is not a delivered or verified result; and
- a record supports the claim it actually documents, not every claim associated with the opportunity.
Information may also be subject to privacy, confidentiality, security, disclosure, and Indigenous governance requirements. The authorized parties decide what may be collected, shared, interpreted, or published.
A Built Together conversation
When Indigenous and industry parties choose to come together around an opportunity, they can ask:
- Opportunity: What real work, requirement, workforce need, or commercial possibility are we discussing?
- Parties: Who should be part of this conversation, and who has authority to decide for each party?
- Fit: Why might working together create value for the participating parties?
- Forms: Which supplier, workforce, training, engagement, partnership, capability, accountability, or formal-requirement forms fit—and which do not?
- Contributions: What is each party prepared and authorized to contribute?
- Decisions: Who owns eligibility, procurement, commercial, employment, governance, information, and public-statement decisions?
- Evidence: What record will support each exact claim and status?
- Unknowns: Which questions must go to an official source, responsible authority, or qualified reviewer?
- Next step: What is the next decision, who makes it, and what information do they need?
The questions are a KM conversation framework, not an official procurement process. If a central answer is unknown, keeping it unknown is more useful than turning a possibility into a commitment.
Building it together without speaking for one another
Indigenous participation can be commercially practical, relationship-based, workforce-connected, and responsive to a specific defence opportunity at the same time. The strongest arrangement is not the one with the most activities. It is one the participating parties have chosen, can explain, and are authorized to carry out.
Kaskitew-Maskwa’s role can be to help create shared understanding, bring together appropriate parties at their request, and keep opportunities, contributions, decisions, and evidence clear. That convening role does not let Kaskitew-Maskwa select who is authorized to participate or speak for the parties, and it does not transfer the authority of an Indigenous party, industry party, Government of Canada authority, employer, or other decision owner.
For Kaskitew-Maskwa’s commercial capabilities, review Services. For high-level industry context, see Sectors. Learn about Kaskitew-Maskwa’s organizational approach at Why Kaskitew-Maskwa.
If your organization is exploring an Indigenous-industry opportunity in defence, Kaskitew-Maskwa can help bring the appropriate parties together, clarify roles and objectives, and support the conversation toward practical next steps.