Grassy Narrows blockade: Indigenous-settler collaboration

This article examines grassroots relationship-building between the Grassy Narrows First Nation and non-Indigenous activists in the first years of the Grassy Narrows blockade (2002-4). In doing so, it aims to provide insight into collaborative efforts between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous activists for land defence and climate justice.

The article is split into two main sections. The first section introduces the Grassy Narrows First Nation and their struggles against colonialism and capitalist resource extraction. The second section focuses on the blockade of Highway 671, the longest lasting Indigenous blockade in Canadian history.

The insights on the Indigenous-settler collaboration at the Grassy Narrows blockade are primarily taken from the scholarly article “Grassy Narrows Blockade: Reworking Relationships between Anishnabe and Non-Indigenous Activists at the Grassroots,” written by Rick Wallace and published in the International Journal of Canadian Studies in 2010.

All sources can be found at the bottom of the page.

Introduction to Grassy Narrows

Map showing Grassy Narrows in relation to Kenora and Dryden in northwestern Ontario.

Geographical and colonial context

Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek, also known as Grassy Narrows First Nation, is an Ojibwe First Nation situated in the Kenora District of northwestern Ontario, on Treaty 3 territory. Their government-allocated land base is the English River 21 Indian Reserve, which comprises 4,145 hectares (10,240 acres). Their traditional territory, however, is much larger. The reserve is situated 40 km northeast of the city of Kenora, near the confluence of the English River and one of its tributaries, the Wabigoon River.

According to the most recent censuses, the population on the English River 21 Indian Reserve was 584 in 2021, and 638 in 2016.

In March 2025, the registered population of the Grassy Narrows First Nation was 1,623, and the registered on-reserve population was 973.

Grassy Narrows has faced colonial violence since at least 1873, when Treaty 3 was signed. This includes residential schooling, displacement, and environmental degradation, as explained below.

Residential schooling

1925-1969	Grassy Narrows children were interned at the McIntosh Residential School, a residential school in McIntosh, Ontario. This residential school also interned children from Lac Seul, Wabigoon, One Man’s Lake and White Dog (Wabaseemoong) Reservations/First Nations.
January 2025	114 “unmarked burial features” were discovered on the property of the former residential school, specifically a part of the property where Grassy Narrows members anticipated such burials.

Disruption and displacement

1950s

The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario (the predecessor of Ontario Hydro) flooded part of the traditional lands of the Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong Independent First Nations to build generating stations. This made traditional and long-standing practices like trapping and harvesting wild rice impossible in these areas.

1963

The Department of Indian Affairs displaces the Grassy Narrows First Nation from their land, relocating them to a reserve 8 km southeast, adjacent to the English-Wabigoon River, and accessible by road from Kenora. This change was required by federal policy to enable those on reserve to have access to utilities like electricity, sewers, and indoor plumbing, as well as services like an on-reserve elementary school. The new location increases the previously limited contact between the First Nation and Canadian society. The increased possibility of integration into the Canadian economy undermines the traditional Grassy Narrows lifestyle, since community members no longer depend entirely on traditional and long-standing practices like seasonal migration, trapping, and harvesting for their survival.

Mercury poisoning

1962	Dryden Chemicals Ltd. began operating a chlor-alkali plant in Dryden Ontario, located about 130 km upstream of Grassy Narrows’ relocated reserve. The plant used mercury to manufacture chlorine, which was used by the Dryden Paper Company Ltd. to bleach the paper it produced.
1962-70	Dryden Chemicals dumps 9-10,000 kg of mercury into the Wabigoon River. This pollutes the water and fish of the English-Wabigoon river system, and poisons the peoples of the Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong Independent First Nations, whose staple food is the fish of these waters. Symptoms include tremors, insomnia, memory loss, neuromuscular effects, headaches, and cognitive and motor dysfunction.
1970	As a result of the mercury pollution, the Ontario government bans commercial fishing and orders Dryden Chemicals to stop dumping mercury. The people of Grassy Narrows are not only poisoned by mercury and deprived of their means of subsistence; they are also deprived of their livelihood, since commercial fishing and fishing-related tourist activities had become the main source of their income. However, no cleanup of the water system was ordered at this time.
1986	The Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong Independent First Nations concluded a settlement agreement with the federal government and the Ontario government to create a Mercury Disability Board to administer a Mercury Disability Fund for members of both First Nations who suffer from mercury poisoning. In 2018, it was reported that only 5.9% of Grassy Narrows community members receive compensation from the Mercury Disability Fund, and that almost 70% of applications have been rejected.
2016	Over forty years after the Ontario government ordered the pollution to stop, the economic and environmental situation has hardly changed. A 2016 report states that over 90% of residents of Grassy Narrows and Wabaseemoong Independent First Nations reserves have symptoms of mercury poisoning. In addition, exposure to mercury is directly linked to extremely high suicide rates among Grassy Narrows youth. In November 2016, the Toronto Star reports that the fish eaten by Grassy Narrows community members are the most contaminated in Ontario. This comes just months after the Ontario government claims that there is no evidence that the Wabigoon River system needs to be cleaned of mercury. Grassy Narrows community members told the Star that they still eat fish from contaminated lakes because they don’t have enough money to buy food or boats to fish farther away, and also because living off the land is an important part of their culture.
2017	The Ontario government finally committs to cleaning up the mercury-contaminated waters of the English-Wabigoon river system, committing $85 million for the initiative.
2020	In 2020, the federal government and Grassy Narrows signed the Mercury Care Home Framework Agreement, which requires Ottawa to fund the construction and operation of an on-reserve care facility for people suffering from mercury poisoning. A similar agreement was signed between the federal government and Wabaseemoong Independent First Nations, with the government committing $19.5 million. By the end of 2020, the federal government had committed $200 million up to 2025 to finance both centres.
June 2024	Grassy Narrows First Nation sues the governments of Ontario and Canada, arguing that they violated their treaty obligations by failing to ensure that Grassy Narrows people could “safely practise their right to fish.
Present (February 2025)	The paper mill in Dryden is still in operation, employing over 350 people. A 2024 study from Western University found that new mercury poisoning is occurring as a result of present-day industrial pollution. The industrial wastewater from the mill contains sulfate and organic matter which produces methylmercury - which is even more toxic than regular mercury - from inorganic mercury in the environment. Grassy Narrows is seeking the closure of the paper mill.

Resource extraction and resistance

1997	The Government of Ontario issues a forestry licence for clearcutting to newsprint company Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. on Crown lands in the Keewatin area, which includes Grassy Narrows traditional territory. As a result of clearcutting in the Whiskey Jack Forest, Grassy Narrows people see their hunting and trapping grounds destroyed, and local game populations decreased. There is also concern that clearcutting is increasing mercury levels in fish.
December 2002	In response to the clearcutting, a blockade was formed on Ontario Highway 671 into Grassy Narrows territory, giving rise to what would become the longest-standing Indigenous blockade in Canadian history. Although this main route into Grassy Narrows territory was blocked, logging continued via alternate access points.
2005-2014	Grassy Narrows files a legal challenge against the Ontario government to have the forestry licence revoked, on the basis that it violates their treaty rights to harvest the non-reserve lands on their traditional territory. Their challenge is initially successful in Ontario Superior Court in 2011, but is ultimately rejected on appeal by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2013. This latter decision is upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014.
July 2006	Grassy Narrows blockaders and non-Indigenous activists with the Rainforest Action Network blockade a section the Trans-Canada Highway near Kenora, to protest continued logging. The protesters set up a 30-foot tall metal tripod on the highway, preventing logging trucks carrying hardwood taken from Grassy Narrows territory to a timberstand mill in Kenora. Later that month, protesters blockade the English River Road, where approximately 2,500 logged trees were transported every day from Grassy Narrows traditional territory to the Weyerhaeuser Trus Joist mill in Kenora.
2007	Grassy Narrows First Nation call for a moratorium on all logging activity taking place without their consent. Negotiations with the Ontario government...
2008	Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. ends its logging operations in the Whiskey Jack Forest area.
2017	The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry establishes a logging moratorium over 76% of the Whiskey Jack Forest for the remainder of the province’s 2012-2022 forest management plan. This moratorium is then extended until 2024, when a new 10-year forest management plan is expected to take effect. There are also around 3,200 mining claims in Grassy Narrows’ traditional territory. (In July 2024, this had reportedly increased to 10,000 mining claims). As of July 2024, the province of Ontario had reported delays in developing a plan for the Whiskey Jack Forest.
2023	Grassy Narrows issues the Asubpeeschoseewagong Anishinabek Aaki Declaration (Grassy Narrows First Nation Land Declaration), which asserts their sovereignty over their traditional territory and bans all resource development on their land.
July 2024	Grassy Narrows First Nation filed a legal challenge against Ontario’s Mining Act, which argues that the province’s free-entry system to establish mining claims violates the duty to consult present in both the Canadian Constitution and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
2024	Throughout the year, Grassy Narrows community members protest the proposed location of an underground nuclear waste site by the Revell lake, a few hours from their traditional territory. The proposal to locate the waste site is approved in November 2024.

The blockade: analysis of a collaboration

The Grassy Narrows blockade became a site of collaborative relationship-building between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous activists. The dynamics of this collaboration were studied by Rick Wallace, who conducted interviews with 11 Grassy Narrows people, most of whom were blockaders, and 11 key non-Indigenous activists who participated in the blockade in 2002-4. Here are some key takeaways from Wallace’s article on the dynamics of Indigenous-settler collaboration.

Power relations and different standpoints

Relationship building between Grassy Narrows community members and non-Indigenous activists depended on recognizing the asymmetrical power relations between the two groups. The colonial legacy of dispossession, displacement, and cultural genocide created a profound sense of distrust among Grassy Narrows members towards Euro-Canadians.

In the context of the Grassy Narrows blockade, collaboration required navigating different cultural frameworks for understanding the world, knowledge, ethics, and decision-making. This was especially evident in relation to the different and sometimes competing agendas between Grassy Narrows blockaders and non-Indigenous activists.

For Grassy Narrows community members, the blockade struggle was grounded in (1) their lived experience of colonialism and (2) their intrinsic connection to the land.

“All of the GNFN blockaders interviewed actively asserted that the conflict and the blockade were to be understood in terms of their collective experience of colonialism (a lived experience of structural and cultural violence) and their challenging its ongoing impact by retaking control through the blockade over their local space and re-asserting their Anishinaabe identities, individually and collectively” (7).

This standpoint was the basis for Grassy Narrows community members to challenge the power asymmetries with external institutions and non-Indigenous activists.

“In the context of such structural and cultural violence, the blockade for GNFN blockaders was about many things: recouping and asserting a way of life, language and culture, reclaiming space and territory, strengthening community cohesion, celebrating, gathering and reflecting, “[i]t’s almost like the blockade is where you realize who you really are, you know”” (43).

Wallace argues that local-level, grassroots organizing made it possible to invert the colonial power relations present in broader Canadian society. Doing so depended on non-Indigenous activists engaging with Grassy Narrows community members in terms that went beyond a relationship of instrumentality towards a relationship of trust.

Building trust

The legacy of colonialism “left a profound sense of disappointment and distrust from Indigenous peoples towards Euro-Canadians” (43-4). This made it fundamentally important to build trust between Grassy Narrows blockaders and non-Indigenous activists.

Trust was established through actions. Wallace highlights 6 kinds of actions that built trust in Grassy Narrows blockaders (44):

1. Direct experience of Grassy Narrows cultural existence on the land
2. Commitment and participation in the blockade
3. Exhibiting a sense of shared values and contextual understanding
4. Communicating with honour and honesty
5. Not usurping Grassy Narrows’ leadership
6. Proactive participation in Grassy Narrows ceremonies

Here are some quotes from interviewed Grassy Narrows blockaders about each of these actions:

Direct experience of Grassy Narrows cultural existence	“These were people that actually did things with you. Some of them even lived at the blockade, on the reserves with the people. They went hunting with you, they went fishing with you, they did all of the things with you that you were trying to protect. These were people that you know, actually living the lifestyle you’re living. These were people that slept out in -40C weather in January and February and knowing, the things you have to go through” (44).
Commitment and participation in the blockade	“They were there from the very beginning when the blockade went up and right till the end. To me anyways, they were the people I could trust. They were the ones I could develop a close relationship to as friends. … They weren’t people who were just there one day and gone in the morning” (45).
Shared values and understanding	“To me, in order for me to trust someone, I have to get to know them, I have to be in the same like, knowing what my beliefs are and what my rights are, I have to know if that other person agrees with what I believe in or at least is at the same level of what I believe in” (45).
Honest communication	“I expect everybody that’s involved in the struggle to be as honest as us. To be truly honest … They cannot exaggerate. They cannot lie about our struggle. They have to speak the truth” (45).
Respecting Grassy Narrows’ leadership	“What we kind of got from XXX and YYY [NGOs] was that they kind of used us for their own publicity (GLL: 237) … And in the end I see that s/he was there for his/her own glory. And I could never trust her/him, and s/he knows that” (45).
Proactive participation in Grassy Narrows ceremonies	“A lot of times, what I’ve seen, they [non-Indigenous activists] wanted to be a part of what was going on. They wanted to learn, they wanted to be there to experience, and in order for them to experience that they had to participate. It was their choice” (46).

Solidarity work

Solidarity involved non-Indigenous activists supporting Grassy Narrows’ self-determination, which meant “respecting the primacy of Grassy Narrows First Nation in leading their own struggle” (47). Wallace says that solidarity required non-Indigenous activists “to understand their role not as key leaders but as components” of a Grassy Narrows strategy.

Solidarity was manifested in 3 ways:

1. Collaborative processes of consultation and decolonizing decision-making;
2. Actively developing overlapping agendas and strategies that included community, social justice and environmental concerns; and
3. Providing material and political support, such as through blockade support and wider strategic actions.

According to Wallace, the main things the non-Indigenous activists did were:

• Direct support at the blockade, including:
  • Media relations support (e.g. preparing press releases)
  • Mobilizing national and international networks to raise awareness
  • Supplying materials (like food and building supplies)
  • Maintaining a continuous physical presence at the blockade
  • Acting as observers/witnesses at the blockade
• Public support beyond the blockade, like:
  • Public education, protest, and artistic events
  • Fundraising
  • Media support: websites (like freegrassy.net, launched by the Rainforest Action Network), information flow, and capacity-building skills
  • Separate campaigns to pressure corporations, using direct action, access to forestry company officials, and targeting of forestry product sales
  • International lobbying and reports
  • Legal challenges on behalf of Grassy Narrows trappers
  • Reaching out to potential allies like unions and churches

Tensions in collaboration

Wallace identifies 4 kinds of tension felt by Grassy Narrows blockaders towards non-Indigenous activists:

1. Non-Indigenous NGO attitudes and behaviours that reproduced the larger social relations of inequity;
2. External [non-Indigenous] practices of decision making and organizing that clashed with community practices;
3. Mistrust over activists’ motivations and commitment to relationship building; and
4. A positioning of voice, framing and authority that subordinated Grassy Narrows sovereignty

Reproducing colonial dynamics	“And they [particular NGOs] seemed to be interested in … giving us ideas about how to move the community forward a little bit. It [was] almost like they thought we were ten years behind or something” (50).
Conflicting decision-making practices	Some non-Indigenous NGOs’ decision-making processes ran counter to Grassy Narrows practices that valued informality and time differently, as in the following quote: “Like when they [non-Indigenous NGOs] say, “You have to develop a needs assessment” … it’s such a rigid format … so sometimes you know we have to step in and say, “Stop, you know, that’s not working for us.” And they’re starting to know that. We do things differently. And our time is slower … we do things slower. We need to check. We need to observe and see, you know, where things are going. It could take years, you know, for us to come up with a comfortable room where we can say this way or that way about something, you know” (51).
Distrust of activists’ motivations	“[T]hey [certain NGOs] wanted to keep it quiet that we were going to be blocking … like really hush-hush. I feel like from the very beginning we never had anything to hide. … I felt like they were doing what we were fighting against—not giving these people their own choice if they wanted to be involved or not. … I felt like that made us look like we weren’t in control [rather] that they were” (51).
Subordinating Grassy Narrows' sovereignty	In communication between the protesters (i.e., both Grassy Narrows blockaders and non-Indigenous) and the police, Grassy Narrows voices were less prominent, leading to media coverage centring on the NGO framing.

There were also 5 broad challenges for non-Indigenous activists in building relationships with Grassy Narrows people:

1. Different decision-making processes among the two groups, stemming from different ontological, epistemological, and affective points of reference
2. The need to modify expectations for communication and collaboration given the realities at Grassy Narrows
3. Conflict between on-the-ground relationship-building and internal NGO demands
4. Gaps in understanding the lived experience of Grassy Narrows people
5. Avoiding taking initiative, in an attempt to prioritize Indigenous leadership

Different decision-making processes	One aspect of this was different “social processes of community decision-making,” where decisions were made according to already existing social relationships as opposed to formal or explicit decision-making bodies (52). A second aspect of this was the different cultural notions of time. Grassy Narrows’ blockaders tended to orient their fight on a timescale longer than their lifetimes, whereas the NGOs’ orientation was much shorter-term and constrained by their organizational priorities and available resources. This difference made it difficult for non-Indigenous NGOs that wanted precise timelines for their campaigns.
Expectations for communication and collaboration	As a result of ongoing colonial violence, people in Grassy Narrows tended to be much less reachable than the people NGOs typically work with. This meant that NGO activists had to modify their expectations of Grassy Narrows blockaders. “In Grassy Narrows, some people don’t have a phone in their home. If they do have a phone, you might be leaving a message with their niece or who knows who and who knows if it got to them, and even if it does get to them, the core people at Grassy Narrows are parents, grandparents, traditional land-users, holding down regular jobs, running an activist campaign on a wide range of issues, dealing with crisis management, having all kinds of things on their plate—so they may or may not get back to you that month” (54).
Relationship building vs. organizational demands	NGO activists also encountered challenges in working with Grassy Narrows people when trying, on the one hand, to establish trust through relationship-building, and on the other hand to remain accountable to the external NGO who ultimately decided what they could do.
Gaps in understanding	Non-Indigenous activists noted the profound gaps in understanding of the lived experience of the Grassy Narrows people, which often felt difficult to overcome.
Avoiding initiative	“We tried to take a lot of direction from the community. But sometimes it didn’t work out. … There were times when some of the key blockaders were giving us the impression that ‘you guys don’t always have to wait for us to initiate things.’ Which was good to hear, because it shows a level of trust, but I think it may have been frustrating to them at time because we were too reluctant to initiate things on our end—we didn’t want to step on toes or hijack what they’d begun” (55).