They are often spoken about in the same breath. They are not the same thing. And confusing them is costing both Indigenous businesses and procurement integrity.

Indigenous Participation Plans: Contracts, Not Promises

An Indigenous Participation Plan (IPP) is not a feel-good document. It is not corporate storytelling. It is a scored, weighted, legally binding commitment embedded in major public and private procurement.

On large projects—hospitals, pipelines, highways, government facilities—mainstream prime contractors must now demonstrate how they will implement Indigenous inclusion. This is not optional. The federal government has committed to awarding at least 5% of total contract value to Indigenous businesses annually, and IPPs are among the main tools for achieving that goal.

A serious IPP includes measurable commitments in four areas:

• Employment — What percentage of the workforce will be Indigenous?
• Subcontracting — How many dollars will flow to verified Indigenous businesses?
• Skills & Training — What programs will build long-term capacity?
• Indirect Benefits — Scholarships, bursaries, and community investments when direct hiring is limited.

In Request for Proposals, IPPs often account for a certain percentage of total evaluation scoring. That’s not symbolic. A lower-priced bid can be lost if its IPP is weak. Vague Indigenous-related statements in bid documents receive low scores. Specific, measurable, achievable Indigenous targets have a better chance.

And once awarded, the IPP becomes enforceable. Contractors must submit regular reporting and meet targets or face penalties, holdbacks, or reputational damage. An IPP is a procurement instrument. It moves money. It reallocates opportunity. It is a structural lever of economic policy.

PAIR: Culture, Credibility, and Corporate DNA

Now enter the Partnership Accreditation in Indigenous Relations (PAIR), managed by the Canadian Council for Indigenous Business (CCIB).

PAIR is not project-specific. It is corporate-wide. It evaluates whether Indigenous relations are embedded in a company’s operating system.

To be accredited, companies must demonstrate measurable progress in four pillars:

• Leadership Actions — Policies, budgets, executive accountability.
• Employment — Recruitment and advancement of Indigenous talent.
• Business Development — Procurement from Indigenous suppliers.
• Community Relationships — Engagement and support beyond contracts.

Certification levels—Committed, Bronze, Silver, Gold—reflect increasing maturity and performance. Bronze means a foundation is in place. Gold means Indigenous relations are fully integrated into corporate strategy.

Crucially, PAIR is audited. Independent Indigenous verifiers review documentation and interview stakeholders. A jury makes the final determination. PAIR is credibility. It signals systems change, organizational culture shifts, and public accountability.

Here’s the Confusion….And the Needed Clarification.

Too many procurement managers and many Indigenous bidders blur the lines. An IPP is a project-specific contract commitment. PAIR is a corporate credibility framework. One moves dollars on a defined project. The other measures company-wide performance over time. PAIR does not replace an IPP, and an IPP does not equal corporate transformation. But those corporations that are involved in IPPs can use the Indigenous targets in their overall PAIR performance, but they can also help clarify the differences with their Indigenous suppliers.  When PAIR and IPP are properly aligned, they create something powerful for Indigenous enterprises and communities.  

At the same time, the CCIB can help its Certified Indigenous Businesses understand the differences between the two processes.  I say this because there is market confusion inadvertently caused by the growing number of PAIR-certified companies and the increasing number of IPP requirements in government bid documents. It is nobody's fault. It just so happens that these two separate national trend lines are overlapping among the same market actors. In fact, CCIB can use its nationwide platform to host sessions to clarify matters amongst its corporate and Indigenous members, because the conflation between IPP and PAIR can cause reputational risk for everyone involved if Indigenous businesses misunderstand or expectations are misaligned. 

Indigenous inclusion cannot be reduced to branding, nor can certifications be replaced by procurement wins. IPPs are about enforceable commitments that move capital and capacity into Indigenous hands. PAIR is about an accreditation for Corporate Canada that makes those same commitments credible and sustainable. When we confuse contracts with credentials, we produce distortions and disappointments. When we align them properly, we create something far more powerful: real jobs, real revenue, real equity. Canada does not need more symbolic gestures disguised as reconciliation. It needs clarity, accountability, and delivery. The companies, governments, and Indigenous institutions that understand this distinction will not only protect their reputations — they will transform the Indigenous economic landscape. 

Michael Fox, President and CEO of Indigenous Community Engagement

The views expressed are those of the author(s). National Newswatch Inc. publishes a range of perspectives and does not necessarily endorse the opinions presented.