Since December 3, 2002, the Anishnaabe community of Grassy Narrows has been blockading a logging road at Slant Lake, 80 km north of Kenora, to prevent logging trucks from entering cut blocks on their traditional lands. Until the blockade was set up, members of the Grassy Narrows community had been protesting through official channels clear cutting by Abitibi Consolidated.

The community’s concerns were repeatedly ignored by Abitibi as well as by the federal Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs (INA) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). INA is responsible for representing Canada as signatory to the First Nation Treaties, and thus deals with Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, while OMNR claims jurisdiction over land resources in the province of Ontario, and is thus responsible for issuing logging permits.

Before issuing these permits, OMNR is obliged to consult with First Nation communities, but decisions are often made without the support of the communities affected. This was the case with Grassy Narrows, whose participation in the consultation process with OMNR and Abitibi amounted to little more than tokenism. Despite the community’s staunch opposition to clear-cutting, OMNR consistently approved plans that allowed Abitibi to clear-cut on traditional lands.

OMNR has backed corporate interests by overseeing timber extraction in the area for decades, although the industry has had a catastrophic affect on the ecosystem and on human health. For example, logging permits awarded to Weyerhaeuser Corporation in the 1970s led to the mercury contamination of the English Wabigoon River System, on which the Grassy Narrows community is located.

When Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of First Nation communities, like Grassy Narrows, are not respected by the terms of logging permits issued by OMNR, they are told to consult INA. But when they appeal to INA, the federal Ministry insists that Ontario’s jurisdiction over land and resource allocation prevents them from taking action. The collusion of the two levels of government thus creates a situation in which corporations gain easy access to resources in First Nations’ territory.

TACTICS AND STRATEGY

The blockade at Slant Lake has been set up as an extra-judicial measure to prevent any further government-sanctioned corporate plunder. Joe Fobister, a traditional trapper from Grassy Narrows, explains:“On December 3, we decided to take back the land because our treaty relationship with Canada has failed. The Government of Ontario claims that that’s their land. But Ontario’s not a party to the treaty. We signed the treaty with the government of Canada, the Queen actually...We talked to Robert Nault, Minister of Indian Affairs. He said he has no jurisdiction over land resources. And the government of Ontario says they can’t discuss treaty issues. No one wants to do anything, so I think it’s up to us to do something.”By denying access to the Whisky Jack forest, the blockade has considerably reduced cutting on the community’s traditional lands. Although logging trucks can access cut blocks by two other roads, the alternative routes that must be taken add hours to the trip between the mill and the cut blocks. To prevent all cutting, the community occasionally sets up temporary blockades at the other entry points.

While the blockade is the most direct means by which the community interferes with business-as-usual, it also uses rallies and public outreach to put pressure on the government. In mid-March, a delegation of community members and outside allies, including high school students, blockade leaders and Okiijida Warriors, went to Toronto to take a message to the Minister of Natural Resources, Jerry Ouellette. On March 17, they demonstrated with Toronto-based supporters in front of OMNR headquarters, intending to hand-deliver a letter to the Minister. Typically, they were denied entry to the building and a response from officials.

Later that week, the delegation took part in a mass rally against the First Nations Governance Act (FNGA), which was then being discussed by a committee of federal MPs at Toronto’s Union Station. The delegation hoped to raise awareness of the blockade within the movement against the FNGA.

First Nations opposition to the FNGA exists primarily because the Act will not change the fundamental structure of governance within Canada. It would serve only to reform an inherently flawed system that isolates and divides individual First Nations communities, forcing them to fend for themselves as minuscule municipalities. This dispersion of power results in a political situation that enables OMNR and INA to ignore the demands of First Nations such as the Anishnaabe at Grassy Narrows.

This is why the issue of self-government is at the heart of the community’s struggle for control over local resources. This struggle demands self-government, not just for individual Reserves, but for all First Nations, which must be given political power to co-ordinate efforts to re-claim their collective rights.

Fobister explains the current system of governance and his vision of an alternative: “I’d like to see within the next week or so, that we, go ahead and appoint, elect, a traditional leader. That is where our power will come from. Talk about sovereignty - I’m through with begging. My people have been begging for the last 130 years, since the treaty was signed, and it hasn’t gotten them anything. And they’ll continue to get nothing. Our Band Councils are powerless, because Indian Affairs controls money, controls their money. Band Councils are an extension of Indian Affairs. And we have to do away with them, with that type of leadership. They’re nothing but administrators. They have no power. I believe we have power. We form a traditional government, because, when we take our fight off the reserve boundary and take it out on the land, nobody, not the government, has intervened. So that’s the message: they’re afraid of us.”

This radical perspective is a great strength because it aligns the people of Grassy Narrows with a broad movement of First Nations fighting for sovereignty. This was clear when a call to action from Grassy Narrows prompted the communities of Aroland and Hornepayne to set up their own blockades and other communities to express public support. It was similarly clear when the blockade was visited by Ontario Regional Chief Charles Fox, and by National Chief Matthew Coon Come. Both leaders expressed strong support for the blockade and drew attention to its significance not only for the future of the Grassy Narrows community but for the many other First Nations fighting for sovereignty. Hopefully, direct action in Grassy Narrows may contribute to and benefit from widespread political action by other First Nations unwilling to settle for more divide-and-conquer governance legislation.

Clearly, the Slant Lake blockade will benefit from an effective boycott of Abitibi products. Such a campaign is being considered by Forest Ethics of San Francisco, which just sent delegates to Grassy Narrows. The boycott could also target the Abitibi headquarters in Montreal. Similarly, OMNR should continue to be pressured, especially at its headquarters in Toronto, as well as at its regional offices across the province.

Furthermore, visitors can continue to lend moral and material support to the blockade. They will also be able to add to the numbers that may be required to extend the blockade.

ORGANIZING TO WIN

However, as the Slant Lake blockaders are well aware, the effectiveness of their stand in securing long-term protection for traditional land use rights will require more than putting a stop to Abitibi’s clear-cutting on traditional lands. Ultimately, the long-term success of the blockade will depend on effecting changes to the way in which First Nations as a collective are able to assert their rights collectively.

Therefore, the community’s efforts in the coming months can be complimented by solidarity work that situates the struggle at Grassy Narrows with the broader fight for sovereignty for all First Nations. This fight must engage INA and the federal government as it attempts to push through the FNGA. In the process, the challenge for many activists will be trying to learn what it means to be an ally to the struggle for First Nations sovereignty.