Consult the People - Not the Industry!
Why many Indigenous people are demanding visible consent, documented mandates, and direct consultation from the ground up.
A Canadian Indigenous writer Darren Grimes , published a powerful Substack article this morning that deserves serious attention across the country. I often get inspired by things other people draw attention to. Given the climate today, this one immediately grabbed my attention. Here’s why:
I’ve long criticized people online for their virtue signaling. They think that because they’ve published an opinion, they’ve done their duty and protested. As a 55 year student of psychology and psychological operations, I’ve learned one thing for sure about human behavior. People only take direct action for one of two reasons:
They seek to avoid pain - The pain of public scrutiny. The pain of being wrong. The pain of looking stupid. The pain of publicly demonstrating their ignorance, or
They seek pleasure - The pleasure of being the boss. The pleasure of controlling others. The pleasure of getting rich! The pleasure of being a revered leader, and more.
While showing up at the legislature with a baseball bat might off the “pleasure” aspect to some protestors, it remains against the law.
My friend TheRemanded on X does some superb work. He is articulate and detailed. His reports are flawless. However, his work does not SCARE those who govern us. This is the problem. So when Darren Grimes today wrote his article, it all came clear to me. If we coalesce around the idea below, we will supported by law, and we will scare the living daylights out of those in control. Here is a copy of the article that I similarly posted on X Articles earlier today:
Darren’s argument cuts through years of political theatre, legal fog, and reconciliation industry language. It asks a very simple questions:
Who actually speaks for Indigenous people?
Is it the chiefs?
Is it the band councils?
Is it the AFN?
Is it the lawyers?
Is it the consultants?
Is it the NGOs?
Is it the foreign-funded organizations that have learned there are billions of dollars to be made by keeping Indigenous issues permanently unresolved?
Or is it the people themselves?
That is the question at the heart of this campaign.
For years, Canadians have been told that governments must respect the “duty to consult.” But consultation has become a managed industry. Too often, the people being affected are not the ones being consulted. Instead, consultation is filtered through chiefs, councils, professional negotiators, lawyers, consultants, nonprofit organizations, and bureaucratic structures that may or may not represent the actual views of ordinary Indigenous people.
That is not real consultation.
That is controlled consultation.
And there is a difference.
If a chief wants to negotiate the future of a community, then let him bring a mandate from the people. A real mandate. On paper. With names attached.
If an NGO claims to speak for Indigenous people, let it show who gave it that authority. If a lawyer, consultant, foundation-backed organization, or reconciliation contractor claims to represent the grassroots, then let the grassroots confirm it.
No more invisible consent.
No more assumed consent.
No more speaking for people who were never asked.
The core idea is simple:
Turn “duty to consult” back toward the people.
If Canada claims that consultation is required, then consult the actual Indigenous people affected. Not merely the institutional class. Not merely the people who attend conferences. Not merely the people with funding agreements, retainers, offices, titles, and access to government tables.
Consult the people.
This is why I believe the time has come for an Indigenous People’s Mandate Project (IPMP).
The purpose would be to create an Indigenous-led, signature-backed mandate system that asks ordinary Indigenous people what they actually want before chiefs, NGOs, lawyers, consultants, or government agencies claim to speak for them.
The principle is straightforward:
No chief, NGO, government office, consultant, foundation-funded group, or reconciliation contractor should claim authority without a visible mandate from the people affected.
That mandate should be local, public, documented, and verifiable.
This does not need to start as a massive bureaucracy. In fact, it should not. It should begin at kitchen tables, in community halls, in group chats, in family circles, in small towns, in urban Indigenous communities, and among people who have been quietly saying the same things for years but have never had a structure through which to act.
The operating model could be simple.
Community petitions.
Community mandate forms.
Affidavit-style witness statements.
A public registry of mandates.
Local kitchen table meeting kits.
Media release templates.
Letters to MPs, MLAs, Premiers, and Band Councils.
The message should be clear enough for anyone to understand:
Consult the people, not the industry!
That one sentence captures the entire issue.
The first practical campaign should probably begin in Alberta because Darren’s article was written in response to the Alberta petition issue. But the principle is national. It applies anywhere governments, courts, chiefs, consultants, NGOs, or political actors claim to speak in the name of Indigenous people without proving that the people themselves were asked. At the same time, it may be critical for BC as well as NGOs are claiming to represent every indigenous person in the province, and in doing so, they are destroying BC’s provincial economy.
The first questions should be direct:
“Do Indigenous people want to be directly consulted before chiefs or organizations claim to speak for them?”
“Do Indigenous people want a post-Indian Act framework created by the people instead of imposed by Ottawa, chiefs, lawyers, consultants, or NGOs?”
“Do Indigenous people want any future constitutional negotiation to include grassroots Indigenous signatories, not merely institutional representatives?”
“Do Indigenous people want individual property rights, real economic freedom, own-source revenue, genuine consent, and the right to shape their own future?”
These questions will not be answered by Ottawa.
They will not be answered by NGOs.
They will not be answered by lawyers.
They will not be answered by the reconciliation industry.
They will be answered by Indigenous people themselves.
The tactical model should be local cells, not centralized control. Each cell can be a kitchen table group, a family group, a reserve group, an urban Indigenous group, a small town group, or an online group. Their job would be to collect signatures, record concerns, document consent, and submit mandate packages into a public archive.
That archive matters.
Once the signatures exist, the political argument changes.
A chief can no longer claim to speak for everyone if hundreds or thousands of Indigenous people in that region have publicly demanded direct consultation.
An NGO can no longer claim moral authority if it cannot show who gave it a mandate.
A government can no longer hide behind process if the people themselves are saying, “You never asked us.”
That is the power of signatures.
That is the power of documentation.
That is the power of a visible mandate.
This campaign must be Indigenous-led. That point is essential. Non-Indigenous allies can help with research, publishing, formatting, websites, graphics, media support, document templates, and amplification, but the authority must come from Indigenous people themselves.
The goal is not to create another organization that speaks for people.
The goal is to create a system that proves what the people themselves have said.
The first deliverables could be simple:
A one-page public declaration called:
“Declaration of Indigenous Grassroots Mandate.”
A petition called: “We Demand Direct Consultation With Indigenous People.”
A campaign article called: “Duty to Consult Means Consult the People.”
A public explainer called: “The Reconciliation Industry Does Not Speak For Everyone.”
A contact form called: “Join the Indigenous People’s Mandate Project.”
This is not about attacking Indigenous people.
It is not about attacking treaties.
It is not about erasing rights.
It is about asking who has the authority to speak, negotiate, consent, object, settle, or sign on behalf of the people.
That question is overdue.
For too long, Canada has operated through a system where Indigenous people are often spoken about, spoken for, negotiated over, managed, studied, funded, processed, and represented by others.
But the people themselves have too often been left outside the room - broke, ignored, and left to grovel.
That must end.
If duty to consult means anything, it must mean direct consultation with the people whose lives, land, families, futures, and communities are affected.
Consult the people, not the industry.
That is the campaign.
That is the principle.
That is the line that should not be crossed again.
No more chiefs speaking without a mandate.
No more NGOs speaking without proof.
No more lawyers negotiating the future without the people behind them.
No more reconciliation industry claiming authority it was never given.
If Canada wants consultation, then let Canada consult the people.
And if the people are ready to speak, then it is time to build the system that allows their voices to be documented, counted, published, and impossible to ignore.
Message me to express your interest. If there is sufficient interest from indigenous people, then we will create the technology infrastructure to move this project forward.
The timing is perfect for this right now!
Thanks for sharing, you tagged the British Darren grimes tho, I’m the albertan one ;)
I had the wrong link to Darren in the first publication. I’ve now fixed that in the article.