The Procurement Strategy for Indigenous Business (PSIB) has a problematic 30-year history. Launched as the Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Business in 1996, and rebranded as PSIB in 2021, the program has tried (and arguably failed), to meet a very modest threshold of ensuring a minimum of 5% of federal contracting opportunities were awarded to Indigenous businesses.
Even with the imposition of a mandatory requirement in the 2022 update to the federal contracting policy by the Treasury Board[1], few federal departments (including the Treasury Board itself) have met the 5% target. Most problematically, the Department of Public Works and Government Services[2], the central purchasing organization and single largest purchaser of goods and services for the federal government, achieved only a 2.7% success rate. To put this in context, Canada had a 0.66% shortfall on defence spending in the 2022-2023 fiscal year, a much smaller gap then the 2.3% shortfall by PSPC for Indigenous business contracts.[3]
Most recently, the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council submitted a human rights complaint to the Human Rights Commission, seeking to address a core issue at the heart of the PSIB - who or what qualifies as an “Indigenous person” that can register on the federal Indigenous Business Directory (IBD).
The complaint as reported in the media[4] alleges that Indigenous Services Canada, the department responsible for the PSIB:
- allowed a “systemically discriminatory” program that allows non-Indigenous companies access to PSIB contracts;
- is fully aware that “pretendians” take advantage of the program because of the “lucrative contracts”; and
- negligently failed to exercise “due diligence over who is Indigenous and eligible for the IBD” when verifying Indigenous business validity.
The concerns raised in the complaint are not new. Indigenous communities have been raising the alarm over the scale of Indigenous identity fraud for years. Those concerns are being borne out by the government’s own recent investigations and audits. For example:
- In 2024, investigations by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) revealed serious questions as to how Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) assessed (or failed to properly assess) Indigenous businesses registered on the IBD.
- The June 2025 Report of the Office of the Auditor General on Registration Under the Indian Act noted that the ISC was also significantly behind in other capacities. People applying for a certificate of Indian status were waiting well beyond the 6-month processing standard. This standard was not met in 80% of the applications, with some applicants waiting almost two years for their application to be processed.[5]
- Another June 2025 Report on Professional Services Contracts with GC Strategies Inc. noted that “33% of the examined contracts, federal organizations could not show the contract resources had the experience and qualifications needed to complete the work”.[6]
- In July 2025, ISC reported that Dalian Enterprises Inc. and Coradix Technology Consulting Ltd., two of the companies implicated in the ArriveCan investigations, and who received over $99 million in work under the PSIB failed to meet the PSIB qualification criteria in 16 separate contracts.[7]
Although the Minister of ISC committed to reviewing the PSIB, as of the publication date, no announcement has been made as to when the review will be commenced.
In spite of the concerns raised over the last several years and the government’s own investigations, as yet no substantive efforts have been announced or implemented to address the issues.
The claim brought by the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council, if successful, may be the first step towards tangible actions with respect to the issues identified with the PSIB (for example, through specific orders allowing Indigenous oversight of the IBD or a referral to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for broader considerations).
For further information please see our other bulletins: Reconciliation and Renewal, The New Ineligibility and Suspension Policy Is Now in Effect, Failure to Launch?
