Addressing Media Narratives: Indigenous Procurement Policies Are Not the Problem

Indigenous procurement policies are instrumental in rectifying historical injustices and empowering communities that have long been marginalized and intentionally excluded from the economy to the benefit of corporations and every individual in Canada. The policies are not merely about meeting quotas but are required to foster economic opportunities for Indigenous people and communities, to include those that have been excluded, and result in financial and innovative growth for the whole of the economy in Canada. 

The Misguided Scrutiny of Indigenous Procurement Policies

However, certain media narratives are focussed on questioning the legitimacy and necessity of such policies—and Indigenous businesses themselves—against standards I have not seen non-Indigenous businesses held to.  

This continues the time-old insinuation that the success of Indigenous enterprises in procurement processes is due to preferential treatment rather than their inherent capability and competitive edge. Has the crack in the foundation presented an easy solution to tear down an establishment because people don’t believe it should be built?  

This narrative conveniently ignores the systemic barriers Indigenous businesses have faced and continue to face, including limited access to social and financial capital, and resources that non-Indigenous businesses have been able to build for generations. Should we not be seeing successful Indigenous businesses as even more resilient, capable, and determined because they have succeeded despite the barriers? 

For clarity, Indigenous business success and that which supports Indigenous prosperity largely outweigh the few questionable stories of investigation. The current narrative lacks balance, perpetuates harmful stereotypes, and reinforces prejudices. Not unlike many stories of Indigenous people, positive stories of Indigenous business innovation and success are not only missing but overshadowed by negative or controversial coverage.  

By consistently framing Indigenous procurement in a negative light or by disproportionately highlighting instances of alleged misuse or failure, a narrative is created that questions the competence and legitimacy of Indigenous businesses. It affects public perception and influences policy decisions, potentially leading to the rollback of crucial support mechanisms designed to uplift Indigenous communities. 

The Media Focus on Indigenous Procurement Policies

The media coverage and narrow scrutiny of Indigenous businesses involved in the ArriveCAN app development, for example, has largely focussed on the few Indigenous enterprises that were awarded contracts. This focus, along with widely publicized unfounded accusations and inquiries lacking balanced perspectives, is perpetuating harmful stereotypes and detracting from the broader context of Indigenous business contributions and success. 

Let’s be clear: The ArriveCAN app faces multiple challenges. The Auditor General report alone is 37 pages long, and while not definitive on what contracts were specific to the app, it lists 32 contractors—only four of which identify as Indigenous, representing less than 13% of the total spend. Yet, by singling out the Indigenous businesses, a scapegoat is created, diverting attention away from the systemic issues within the government contracting process and technological implementation strategies. This selective scrutiny not only undermines the credibility of Indigenous businesses but also distracts us from understanding the actual issues and leads some to suggest policies should be eradicated that haven’t truly been tested. 

This is not to dispute that there have been instances of identity fraud or that there have been instances where businesses have taken advantage of policies and that this has resulted in benefits not reaching those for whom they were intended.  Unfortunately, this, folks, is business. In any policy, there will be people who make it work to their advantage. The solution is not to punish those for whom the policy is built but to strengthen the policy.   

Shifting the Narrative Towards Fairness and Recognition

Furthermore, there appears to be a tendency to scrutinize Indigenous procurement more harshly than other forms of supplier diversity. For instance, programs that support women-owned or underrepresented-owned businesses are generally celebrated and rarely questioned to the same extent. In addition, the requirements to qualify as an Indigenous business are more rigorous than any other. This discrepancy not only highlights a double standard but provides additional barriers and, in my view, reveals an underlying discomfort or resistance to the advancement of Indigenous peoples specifically.

I am not arguing against the importance of testing policies, holding systems accountable, and ensuring fairness in governmental and corporate practices. Imagine where we would be if that was done during colonization. However, the tone and nature of the inquiries, comments, and accusations of late bring about questions of underlying biases and a narrative that—if it doesn’t border on it—certainly contributes to racism. It is an uneasy accusation, I know, and I understand that headlines and clicks matter, but at what point do we call out the harm it does? 

Indigenous businesses are an integral part of Canada’s economic fabric, and their stories deserve to be told with the same complexity and respect afforded to any other entrepreneurial ventures. Shifting the narrative to one that acknowledges both challenges and achievements will foster a more inclusive and accurate representation of Indigenous entrepreneurship.