Thanks for the question.
At ITK, we always advocate for a distinctions-based approach to the Government of Canada working with Inuit. We recognize that in first nations and Métis realities, there may be very different considerations or policy ambitions. Perhaps in those particular areas, they may think of government administering an enforcement mechanism as being unacceptable.
For Inuit, we have really gone all in on our relationship with the Crown. We see ourselves as first Canadians and Canadians first. We have settled modern treaties with the Crown, and we want to forge this path together for implementation of our modern treaties as shared responsibilities. Therefore, the attempts of government, even if they are well meaning, to silo enforcement or even the adjudication of indigenous businesses to an external partner gets us further away from the enforcement mechanisms that we were hoping for.
Ultimately, we want recourse and a remedy for those who violate our human rights—we've advocated for a long time for an indigenous human rights tribunal—or, in this case, accountability for not being an Inuit business but being eligible under this procurement strategy. Having to go through a third party doesn't have the weight and power of the federal government in order to do anything about this particular violation.
I do recognize your central point that there are others who feel that the Government of Canada shouldn't be in the enforcement space, but our position is very much that the government should be.