GNWT Adopts a Definition of ‘NWT Indigenous Business’ — Baby Steps on the Indigenous Procurement File

On June 30, 2026, the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) announced that it has adopted a definition of an “NWT Indigenous business” to bring clarity to reporting on Indigenous participation in government procurement. The definition will be added to the GNWT's procurement guidelines “for information and reporting purposes only,” and it does not change how contracts are awarded, introduce any procurement preference or alter existing procurement rules. It will be reflected in public procurement reporting beginning in the 2026–27 fiscal year.

A long time coming

The GNWT has been consulting on this file for years. By its own account, it has “engaged extensively” on the development of an Indigenous procurement policy since 2021. I remember those consultations well — back in 2021, the same year the government's procurement review panel was canvassing the business community, I was president of the Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce.

The panel's job on this topic was to gather reactions to the idea of an Indigenous procurement policy, and what it heard was telling: participants were “consistently supportive” of using procurement to support Indigenous governments and businesses. Indeed, the Northwest Territories & Nunavut Construction Association pointed out that the Northwest Territories is home to more Indigenous businesses than Nunavut and Yukon combined, yet — unlike its neighbours to the east and west — the GNWT has “no organized approach to direct more government spending to local Indigenous businesses.” On this front, the Northwest Territories remains a real laggard.

Regular readers of this blog will know we have been following this story for some time. We covered the release of the current iteration of the Business Incentive Policy, and we have tracked the halting progress on procurement reform in the Northwest Territories more generally — the 2021 procurement review panel process being the high-water mark of that effort. That panel recommended, among other things, that government-to-government dialogues be undertaken to collaboratively develop an approach to advance Indigenous participation in procurement, and expressly encouraged the GNWT to consider the model Yukon used to develop its own First Nations Procurement Policy.

So what became of that procurement review? I honestly can't tell you where it all landed. The engagement clearly continued — there is a “Have your say: Development of an Indigenous Procurement Policy” page that the government itself links to in the news release — but five years on, this reporting definition is what we have to show for it.

The hard part was always the definition

The business community's support for an Indigenous procurement policy was never really in doubt. The major stumbling block, then as now, was defining an “Indigenous business.” Would it have to be 100% Indigenous-owned, or something less than 100%? What about control — and could you even measure it? And would it also have to be a Northwest Territories business?

The panel report captures exactly this tension. Participants debated whether to follow the federal Procurement Strategy for Aboriginal Business, which some felt made it hard for even a 100%-owned Indigenous firm to qualify, versus the more “cumbersome” Nunavut NNI approach. Many noted that Indigenous governments typically keep their own lists of businesses operated by their citizens, and suggested it might be “more appropriate to rely on those lists than to establish a separate definition.”

Others floated sliding scales keyed to community ownership, majority Indigenous ownership or Indigenous employment. Defining a “Northwest Territories business” was described as “one of the most complex components of the procurement review” — adding the Indigeneity layer only compounds the difficulty.

And the definitional question is only the start. Who adjudicates whether a business qualifies? And who enforces it? As we wrote when the Yukon Indigenous procurement policy stumbled, these are not academic concerns — the design details of adjudication, enforcement and measurement can make or break a policy. Yukon set an ambitious target of awarding 15% or more of annual procurement spending to Yukon First Nations businesses, and built in a performance-measurement framework complete with a monitoring and review committee and independent evaluation every five years. Those are exactly the kinds of commitments that create accountability — and exactly the kinds of commitments that can trip a government up if the underlying definitions and processes aren't sound.

A decent, safe solution: outsource the qualification

To its credit, the GNWT appears to have found a sensible and low-risk way through. Under the new definition, an NWT Indigenous business is one that (1) is registered under the GNWT Business Incentive Policy (BIP), and (2) is either registered in the federal Indigenous Business Directory (IBD) or listed on a publicly available business registry maintained by an NWT Modern Treaty Partner. As the GNWT puts it, this approach “relies on existing registration systems rather than creating a new one” and “recognizes the role Indigenous governments already play in identifying their own businesses."

In other words, the territory has effectively outsourced the Indigeneity qualification. By relying on the federal directory and on Indigenous governments' own registries, it sidesteps the thorny job of deciding who counts as Indigenous. It isn't entirely clear what appeal mechanisms the Indigenous governments offer for their registries, but the federal directory has its own reconsideration process. So if you have a beef with a determination that your business doesn't qualify as Indigenous, you can take it up with the feds or with the relevant Indigenous government — not with territorial procurement staff.

Relying on the Business Incentive Policy for the Northwest Territories ownership-and-control component is equally sensible. The policy is the cornerstone of the government's efforts to support local businesses, has roughly 1,200 registered businesses and has been refined over 40-plus years of amendments. Critically, it already has its own appeal mechanism built in. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Where this is headed

I expect this definition to find its way into an actual Indigenous procurement policy eventually — whenever the government gets around to overhauling its broader procurement framework. The current centerpiece, the Business Incentive Policy, has no Indigenous component, a shortcoming the government has long acknowledged. Officials are careful to say that this definition “does not commit the GNWT to future policy changes,” and that any future decisions will follow the usual evidence- and engagement-driven process. For now, though, it's a foundation — and a reasonable one. Baby steps.

What this means for contractors and procurement teams

A few practical takeaways while the dust settles:

• Nothing changes at the bid table — yet. The definition is for information and reporting only; it does not create a preference, change evaluation criteria or alter how contracts are awarded. Contractors do not need to adjust bidding strategy today, and procurement teams should not treat “NWT Indigenous business” status as a scoring factor.

• Registration is the currency. Because the definition piggybacks on existing systems, the businesses that stand to benefit from any future policy are those already registered under the BIP and listed on the federal Indigenous Business Directory or an NWT Modern Treaty Partner's registry. Indigenous businesses that expect to be counted — or to qualify under a future preference — should get onto the relevant registries now rather than later.

• Get your BIP house in order. The Business Incentive Policy has its own eligibility criteria, substantiation requirements and compliance regime, and the panel recommended tightening enforcement through certifications, spot audits and potential disbarment for false information. Ensure your registration data is current and defensible.

• Know where to complain. Qualification disputes will run through existing channels: the federal directory's reconsideration process or the relevant Indigenous government's registry process for Indigeneity, and the Business Incentive Policy's built-in appeal mechanism for the NWT ownership-and-control piece. There is no separate territorial appeal for the new definition itself.

• Watch this space. The government says the definition does not commit it to future policy changes, but reporting under it begins in the 2026–27 fiscal year. The data it generates is the most likely foundation for an eventual Indigenous procurement policy — so contractors and procurement teams should track the annual reporting and be ready for the definition to acquire real teeth down the road.