Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 35

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

Save Passamaquoddy Bay


A 3-Nation Alliance
(US Passamaquoddy Canada)
PO Box 222 Eastport, ME 04631
(207)853-2922
info@SavePassamaquoddyBay.org
www.SavePassamaquoddyBay.org

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary


Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
eFiled on 2016 January 27
Re:! Downeast LNG, Docket Nos. CP07-52-000, CP07-53-000, CP07-53-001, and
PF14-19, Passamaquoddy Rights in the Waterway
Dear Ms. Bose,
On 2014 August 1 (Accession No. 20140801-5035), Pierce Atwood lawyer Matthew
Manahan of Pierce Atwood LLP, representing Downeast LNG, argued that the Passamaquoddy Tribe has no rights in the marine waterway as a result of the 1980 Maine Indian Land Claims Settlement Act. Thus, he argued, Downeast LNG is not obligated to
fulfill the US Coast Guard Captain of the Port requirement based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and as a stated requirement in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement, to obtain a letter of agreement from the Passamaquoddy Tribe consenting to Downeast LNGs use of the shared waterway.[1]
The applicant must provide written verification to the Coast Guard of collaboration with
and acceptance from the Passamaquoddy Nation, ensuring its jurisdictional interests
and public safety and security needs associated with this project are adequately met.[2 ]

The Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1760 between Great Britain and the Passamaquoddy (and other tribes) and the 1726 Treaty guaranteed to the Passamaquoddy
that they would retain their fishing rights.[3]
Pierce Atwoods opinion failed to consider the rights of the Passamaquoddy in Canadian
waters. Passamaquoddy rights in Canadian waters are not affected by any Maine law or
agreement. Whether or not Maine Passamaquoddy retain rights in the Maine marine
waterway, the Passamaquoddy have never relinquished their inherent rights in the Canadian waterway the same waterway Downeast LNG ships would need to transit.
1"

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Section 4, Environmental Analysis, p4-355, FERC;


http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=13545996

2"

Ibid.

3"

Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1760, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Government of Canada; https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600.

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

The three Passamaquoddy tribal governments Indian Township, Sipayik/Pleasant


Point, and St. Croix Schoodic Band have all expressed their adamant disapproval of
the Downeast LNG project.[4 ],[5],[6] They will not be providing a letter of agreement to
allow Downeast LNG ship transits. Downeast LNG cannot comply with the US Coast
Guard requirement.
And then, there is the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which the
United States is a signatory.[7] The agreement recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples, including rights for cultural, religious, and economic purposes, and recognizes
their right to reject projects affecting their resources:
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and
informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization
or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.[ 8]
By requiring Downeast LNG to obtain Passamaquoddy Tribal Government consent regarding shared use of the waterway including the Canadian waterway the US
Coast Guard is fulfilling US Government obligations 1) under the UN Declaration of
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2) recognizing First Nations treaty rights in Canada, and
3) under the US National Environmental Policy Act.
Since Downeast LNG refuses to comply with the US Coast Guard requirement thus,
violating the UN Declaration, NEPA, and Canadas treaty obligations Downeast LNG
has uncompromisingly defeated its own purpose: It can neither receive nor ship LNG.
Downeast LNG has no legal veracity in this matter. To prevent further waste of public
resources and violation of NEPA and public stakeholder interests, FERC must dismiss
Downeast LNG from permitting.
Very truly,
Robert Godfrey
Researcher & Webmaster

4"

See accompanying file:


Indian Township Tribal Government opposition letter, Docket Accession No. 20140619-5051.

5"

See accompanying file:


Pleasant Point Tribal Government opposition letter, Docket Accession No. 20140612-0030.

6"

See accompanying file:


St. Croix Schoodic Band Tribal Government opposition letter, Docket Accession No. 20130513-5040.

7"

See accompanying file:


UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples, United Nations, 2008.

8"

Ibid.

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

CC:! US Coast Guard, LTJG David Bourbeau


Minister of Indigenous & Northern Affairs Canada, Hon. Carolyn Bennett
Saint Croix Schoodic Band of Passamaquoddy Chief Hugh Akagi
Passamaquoddy Pleasant Point Tribal Vice-Chief Vera Francis
Passamaquoddy Indian Township Tribal Chief William Nicholas
Passamaquoddy Tribal Historian Donald Soctomah
Aroostook Band of Micmacs Chief Edward Peter Paul
Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Chief Brenda Commander
Penobscot Nation Chief Kirk Francis
Sen. Angus King
Sen. Susan Collins
Rep. Bruce Poliquin
Rep. Chellie Pingree
Canadian Consul to the US David Alward
Canadian Member of Parliament Karen Ludwig
New Brunswick Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Andrew Hashey
New Brunswick MLA John Ames
New Brunswick Minister of Fisheries Rick Doucet
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
! Jim Beyer
! Commissioner Paul Mercer
Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, John Noll
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1, Tim Timmerman
US Environmental Protection Agency, American Indian Environmental Office
! Director JoAnn Chase
! Senior Policy Advisor Luke Jones
! Andrew Baca
US Department of Transportation, PHMSA
! Jeff Wiese, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety
! Kenneth Lee, Director Engineering and Research Division
! Charles Helm
The Quoddy Tides
The Calais Advertiser
The Saint Croix Courier
Telegraph-Journal
Bangor Daily News
The New York Times
The Washington Post
Huffington Post
60 Minutes
Moyers and Company
MSNBC
Last Word With Lawrence ODonnell
Service List

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada


Home

> All Topics

> Acts, Agreements, Treaties and Land Claims

> Land Claims

> East Coast Negotiations on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Self Government

> Comprehensive Claims

> Peace and Friendship Treaties

> Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1760

Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1760


Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1760[ Note 1 ]
This fact sheet gives some context to the Peace and Friendship Treaties in the Maritimes and Gasp. They
are important historical documents that can be viewed as the founding documents for the development of
Canada. The Treaties were signed with Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy First Nations prior to 1779.
Treaties are solemn agreements that set out long-standing promises, mutual obligations and benefits for
both parties.

Early History
The Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy have inhabited the Atlantic region for thousands of years. The
three communities believe their ancestors have lived in this area since the beginning of time. Archaeologists
have been able to confirm evidence of their occupation going back at least 2500 to 3000 years.
Before 1500 AD, the Mi'kmaq's main communities were on mainland Nova Scotia, Cape Breton Island, Prince
Edward Island, along the coast and rivers of eastern New Brunswick, and the Gaspe Peninsula of eastern
Quebec.
The Maliseet, on the other hand, lived along the St. John River Valley and its tributaries in central New
Brunswick. Some families may also have hunted and fished on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River
above Lake Temiscouata.
The Passamaquoddy lived along the St. Croix River and its tributaries though families appear to have lived
mainly in coastal areas bordering on Passamaquoddy Bay. Though the Passamaquoddy are often identified as
a separate and distinct people, British and French officials stressed the strong cultural and biological ties
between the Passamaquoddy and the Maliseet.
Little is known about the history of the Maliseet, the Mi'kmaq and the Passamaquoddy before 1500. We do
know that 500 to 3000 years ago, families from each communities lived in small family groupings and moved
with the seasons in search of fish and game. The region's growing season was short but the Passamaquoddy,
Mi'kmaq and Maliseet were able to rely on plentiful and reliable sources of fish and marine mammals to
sustain themselves. Salmon, alewives (gaspereaux), herring, sturgeon, cod, mackerel and eels were some of
the principal fish caught while seals and walruses were the main marine mammals.
From the early spring, families lived principally through fishing but beginning in October, more time was
spent hunting game. During the cold weather months, families who had been living together in one village
divided into hunting groups, composed of several households.
Game served two main purposes. First, families depended on animals for a steady supply of meat for much
of the winter. Moose were especially valued because of the animal's size. Smaller animals were hunted as
well, including beaver, marten, fox, and otter. Second, Skins and furs were used to make clothing while
sinew was used in lieu of nails and porcupine quills to make snowshoes.[Note 2 ] Some animal products had
multiple purposes. Besides being used for clothing, moose hides were also used to make the outer covering
for a small canoe.[Note 3 ] The hide could also be used as a sail.
Like most pre-industrial people, the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet depended on nature's bounty to provide for
themselves. Therefore, the Maliseet and Mi'kmaq stressed the importance of maintaining a close spiritual
relationship with all living organisms, and especially fish and animal spirits. Like other aboriginal people, the

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

Maliseet and Mi'kmaq believed that animals allowed themselves to be killed so that humans could live.
However, the continuance of this relationship depended upon respecting the laws which governed the
relationship, such as properly disposing of fish and animals bones and not over-hunting.
There is some uncertaintly about the Maliseet, Passamaquoddy and Mi'kmaq political structures before 1500.
Some scholars believe Mi'kmaq communities were politically organized into the Sante Mawiomi or Grand
Council. The Sante Mawoimi included a keptin or chief from each of Mi'kma'ki's seven geographical districts.
The keptins were elected by their people to represent their interests at the Council. At the head of the
Council was the Grand Chief who was elected to his position by the keptins. The Grand Chief was assisted in
his duties by the Grand Captain.
The precise duties and responsibilities of the Grand Council are not well known. However, the council and its
members appear to have made decisions on issues of common concern to all communities. One such concern
was war and threats posed to Mi'kma'ki by outsiders.
However, not all historians agree that the Grand Council existed before 1500. These historians believe that
the Council only emerged sometime in the late 1600s or late 1700s.

The Contact and Colonial Periods


The Europeans who arrived off the coasts of Atlantic Canada between the 1500s and 1600s were mostly
fishermen, who arrived in March and left in October or November. They were fishing for cod, which then
populated the waters off the coasts of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. These fishermen mainly came from
present-day Spain, Portugal and France. Many were from the Basque regions of these countries. English
fishermen only became more prevalent in the late 1500s.
Contact between the fishermen and local aboriginal peoples was always limited, since the fishermen spent
only a short time on land, except in instances where they dried their fish on shore. However, we do know
that fishermen were present throughout much of the Atlantic region and that they must have had some
contact with local Mi'kmaq populations. The fishermen's contact with the Maliseet and Passamaquoddy was
likely considerably less since their families lived along the St. John River, and not along the Atlantic coast.
While they came to fish, Europeans also brought viruses that were not present in Maliseet or Mi'kmaq society
before the 1500s. Because the Maliseet and Mi'kmaq had never been exposed to these viruses, the results
were catastrophic. We don't know how many people died. Most demographers suppose that most aboriginal
communities lost from 50 % to 90% of their original population. This depopulation did not occur all at once
but took place over one or two generations. Before 1500, the combined Maliseet and Mi'kmaq population had
probably numbered between 10,000 and 15,000. By the 1600s, their numbers were down to half that and
possibly less.
The second major affect of contact was the change wrought by trade. Soon after fishermen began fishing off
the East Coast, they began trading with local Mi'kmaq. The Mi'kmaq exchanged furs and skins for such
European goods as knives, hatchets, cloth, thread, mirrors, beads, and tobacco. In Europe, the furs were
used to make hats. As the demand for such hats increased, so too did the number of beaver furs shipped
from North America. Though the Atlantic region was only a critical component of the trade in the first half of
the 17th century, its long term affect on families was profound. On the one hand, the introduction of
European manufactured goods created a dependence upon them. Knives were useful tools which were
quickly integrated into family life. So too were muskets and cloth. But to acquire these items, families
needed to trap furs in greater quantities than they had ever done before. It also meant that families spent
more time hunting inland than they had done before the 1500s.
After the contact period our understanding of Maliseet and Mi'kmaq society increases considerably. This is
because in the early 1600s European nations established colonies in the region and the correspondence from
these regimes provide information about local indigenous populations. Such correspondence, however, was
often sporadic and so there are few records to give a chronological overview of either the Maliseet or the
Mi'kmaq in the post-contact period. We cannot document the major events occurring within each society in
the same manner that we can for England or France at the same time. What we know about the Mi'kmaq and
the Maliseet comes exclusively from European written accounts.

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

The 1726 Treaty


Great Britain's interest in trade lay at the foundation of the series of treaties negotiated with the Mi'kmaq,
the Maliseet, and the Passamaquoddy after 1713. The treaties were mainly concerned with one thing: to
establish a durable alliance between the British and the region's aboriginal communities. In this context, the
British were concerned with each community's relationship with the French Crown. That alliance, thought the
British, undermined their own efforts to establish some form of political control over the region. To that end
the treaties created a series of laws which were designed to normalize relations between the British and the
region's three aboriginal societies.
The first of the treaties was signed in 1726, formally bringing to an end a three year long war between New
England and the Wabanaki. The Wabanaki was a political alliance of the major aboriginal communities living
in the Atlantic region. The alliance was composed of four societies: the Mi'kmaq, the Maliseet, the
Passamaquoddy and a loosely-allied group of communities living between the Penobscot and the Kennebec
Rivers. This allied group is often called the Abenaki.
The war, which had begun in 1722, was mainly sparked by Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Abenaki concerns
regarding the New England colonies northward expansion. New England fishermen had pushed more
aggressively into Nova Scotia's coastal waters than had been true before 1713. For the Mi'kmaq, the
fishermen's aggressive actions sparked concerns about possible interference in the fishery. As well, the
Abenaki were upset with attempts by New England land companies to alienate lands at the mouth of the
Kennebec River, which is a major river flowing into the Gulf of Maine in the southwest Maine.
These two concerns about the expansion of English interests also underlay Mi'kmaq and Maliseet motivations
in negotiating a treaty with the British in 1726.
The 1726 treaty is composed of two separate documents. One document, termed the articles of peace and
agreement, was signed by the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy. This document contains the promises
made by each of the three communities to the British. In total, 77 aboriginal male delegates signed this part
of the treaty. The second document, often referred to as the reciprocal promises, contain those promises
made by the British to the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy. This part of the treaty was signed by the
colony's principal military leaders, Lawrence Armstrong and John Doucett. Armstrong was the LieutenantGovernor of Nova Scotia while Doucett was the Lieutenant-Governor of the British garrison at Annapolis
Royal.
The 1726 treaty and later treaties are unique as much for what they do say as for what they do not. The
treaties were meant to do one thing: harmonize relationships with the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet and in the
process wean them away from their alliance with the French. The treaties were also meant to establish some
general laws regarding inter-relationships between the British and the region's aboriginal inhabitants.
The most important of the treaty's provisions dealt with land. On the one hand, the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet
agreed not to molest His Majesty's subject in their settlements 'already made or lawfully to be made.' By this
clause, both communities formally accepted the legality of existing settlements. They also agreed that the
British might establish future settlements, though such settlements could only be made 'lawfully.' The treaty,
however, did not define 'lawfully.' This issue might have been addressed in the treaty negotiations but the
minutes of these discussions are not extant. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that the two sides to
the agreement agreed that future settlement would be a subject of future negotiations.
In the reciprocal portion of the treaty, the British agreed not to molest the communities' fishing, hunting,
planting and 'other lawful activities. ' Though the treaty did not define the location or size of such fishing,
hunting, and planting grounds, we would assume that such grounds lay outside the 'existing settlements.'
We would also assume that these grounds were ones that were used by the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet at the time
the treaty was signed at 1726. However, it is not clear whether or not all those lands outside the 'existing
settlements' could be considered to be part of the 'fishing, hunting, and planting grounds.'
As is evident, the 1726 treaty did not focus on the issue of land in any great detail. Nor did the treaties
signed after 1726. This was different from what transpired in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the
Canadian federal government negotiated a series of treaties with western natives. Those treaties, which are
often called the numbered treaties, involved the surrender of aboriginal lands to the federal government. In

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

exchange, communities received some form of compensation, including the provision that separate reserves
would be established for them. Such provisions were not part of the treaties signed with the Maliseet and
Mi'kmaq.
As is apparent from this article and others, the British were attempting to bring the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and
Passamaquoddy under the dictates of British law. However, this was far from a simple process. In 1726 the
British lacked any real physical presence in Nova Scotia. There were no English settlers and the military posts
at Annapolis Royal and Canso totaled at most 400 men. The bulk of the population was Acadian and
Mi'kmaq. Given the lack of any real British presence, British law had no real force in Mi'kmaq, Maliseet or
Passamaquoddy communities. Disputes between villagers and with people from other communities were
settled according to the customary laws the people themselves had developed to deal with their
communities' problems. In this sense, the treaties were not intended to impose a new legal system on the
region's aboriginal peoples but only to create mechanisms to mediate their relations with the British.
The problem today is trying to determine how to interpret these clauses when there is so little
documentation.

The 1749, 1752 and 1760/61 Treaties


The 1726 treaty was the first of several treaties the British negotiated with the Maliseet, Passamaquoddy,
and Mi'kmaq. Other treaties were signed in 1749, 1752, and 1760/1. These later treaties were necessary
because up until the late 1750s, the Mi'kmaq remained allied with France and during periods of BritishFrench conflict, many communities chose to side with the French against the British. To a large degree, this
decision was dictated by geography. For instance, up until 1758, France retained de jure (legal) control over
Ile Royale, and Ile St. Jean, as well as de facto (actual) control over much of what is now the province of
New Brunswick. Not surprisingly Mi'kmaq and/or Maliseet communities living in these areas tended to side
with France, a position that had as much to do with practicalities as with their political or cultural affinities
with French officialdom. Thus, the treaties of 1749, 1752, and 1760/61 were negotiated to reaffirm the peace
after periods of war.
Each of these later treaties was different. The 1749 treaty, which was concluded at the end of yet another
British-French conflict (1744-48), reaffirmed the 1726 treaty and did not in any manner modify it. As well,
the treaty was only signed with the Maliseet and with one Mi'kmaq community. Other Mi'kmaq communities
refused to do so, a position which they adopted in anger over the British decision to establish a new
settlement at Halifax in June of 1749. This led to a period of intermittent warfare with the Mi'kmaq which
only came to an end in 1751.
The end of this conflict led to the 1752 treaty. This treaty was signed in Halifax on 22 November by Governor
Hopson and Jean-Baptiste Cope, chief sakamow of Shubenacadie, a community located along the shores of
the Shubenacadie River in central Nova Scotia. Some scholars have argued that Jean-Baptiste Cope was the
Grand Chief and that in signing the treaty, he did so in the name of all Mi'kmaq communities. Not all
scholars, however, agree and point out that the treaty does not say that Cope was Grand Chief. Nor do the
treaty minutes say so. Nonetheless, there is evidence that Cope tried to convince other communities to sign
the treaty, suggesting that he was more than what the English documents said he was.
Some scholars say Shubenacadie was the only community to sign the treaty and point to the fact that both
La Heve and Cape Sable communities had come to some form of agreement with British administrators after
1752. However, not all scholars share this viewpoint and argue that no treaty for either community exists,
nor is there any British documentation suggesting that a final treaty document was signed.
The 1752 treaty reaffirmed the 1726 treaty but also modified it by formalizing a commercial relationship
between the British and Mi'kmaq. This provision was outlined in the treaty's fourth article:
'It is agreed that the said Tribe of Indians shall not be hindered from but have free liberty of Hunting and
Fishing as usual and that if they shall think a Truck house needful at the River Chibenaccadie
(Shubenacadie), or any other place of their resort they shall have the same built and proper merchandise
lodged therein to be exchanged for what the Indians shall have to dispose of and that in the mean time the
said Indians shall have free liberty to bring for Sale to Halifax or any other Settlement within the Province
skins, feathers, fowl, fish or any other thing they shall have to sell where they shall liberty to dispose thereof

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

to the best Advantage.'


For the British, this provision was a critical measure in attempting to wean the Mi'kmaq from their friendly
relationships with the Acadians and French officials in Ile Royale and Ile St. Jean. The British wanted to forge
personal and financial relationships between merchants and Mi'kmaq families.
Cope's attempts to enlist other communities - and especially those still living within the French sphere of
influence in Ile Royale (Cape Breton Island), Ile St-Jean (Prince Edward Island), and the present-day limits of
New Brunswick - to sign the treaty foundered and from the middle months of 1753, relations between the
British and the Mi'kmaq degenerated. The eruption of war in the Ohio Valley between British and French
forces in 1754 further undermined any hope of concluding a more general treaty with other communities.
War soon spread throughout much of eastern North America and then to Europe.
In the ensuing conflict - known in the British colonies as the French and Indian War and in Europe as the
Seven Years War - the British accomplished what they had long desired: the total defeat of French colonial
forces in North America. This victory was sealed in four major campaigns against the four of the principal
French fortresses in eastern North America: the conquest of Fort Beausejour in June 1755, the capture of
Louisbourg in July 1758, the defeat of Quebec in September 1759, and the conquest of Montreal in June
1760.
In the midst of these campaigns, the British initiated peace discussions with the Maliseet, Passmaquoddy and
Mi'kmaq, all of whom had fought alongside French forces. Discussions began soon after the conquest of
Quebec. Negotiations began first with the Maliseet and the Passamaquoddy in late November 1759 and
concluded with the signing of a separate peace treaty with them at Halifax on February 22, 1760. The treaty
was later ratified by individual Maliseet and Passamaquoddy communities at Fort Frederick, a British fort near
to the present day city of St. John, New Brunswick
The treaty re-established the centrality of the 1726 treaty in Maliseet-British relations. At the same time, the
treaty also modified that agreement. The most important aspect of the new agreement was the creation of a
commercial relationship between British merchants and Maliseet traders. By this provision, the Maliseet
agreed not to trade with the French. To ensure that such trade did not occur, the British agreed to establish
a truck house. When asked if they had anything to propose, the Maliseet representatives replied 'their Tribes
had not directed them to propose any thing further than they might be a Truck house established, for the
furnishing them with necessaries, in Exchange for their Peltry, and that it might, at present, be at Fort
Frederick.' Governor Lawrence, speaking on behalf of the Nova Scotia Council replied that upon the
ratification of the treaty, 'a Truck house should be established at Fort Frederick, agreeable to their desire,
and likewise at other Places if it should be found necessary, for furnishing them with such Commodities as
shall be necessary for them.'
The Maliseet-Passamaquoddy treaty of February 1760 formed the basis on which later treaties were signed
with individual Mi'kmaq communities in 1760 and 1761. The first of these Mi'kmaq treaties was signed on 10
March, 1760 with three communities: the Shubenacadie, La Have, and Richibuctou Mi'kmaq. Later treaties
were finalized with communities from Cape Breton, Miramichi, Pokemouche, Shediac (all signed on 25 June
1761), Chignecto/Missiquash (8 July 1761), and Pictou/Malogomich (12 October 1761).
Though some scholars have argued that a number of Mi'kmaq communities did not sign treaties in 1760 or
l761, later documentation suggests that the British thought they had done so. However, the issue of who are
parties to the treaty continues to be a matter of some controversy, particularly in the wake of the Supreme
Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Marshall in 1999.
There are both similarities and differences between the treaty signed with the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy in
February 1760 and those treaties signed later with Mi'kmaq communities. The most important difference was
that the February treaty specifically reaffirmed earlier treaties made with the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy. In
this case, the texts of both the 1726 and 1749 treaties were included. At the same time, the treaty also
introduced several new agreements and so modified the British relationship with the MaliseetPassamaquoddy. The most important addition was the truck house clause.
The Mi'kmaq treaties assumed a different form. Unlike the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy treaty, the Mi'kmaq
treaties did not specifically reaffirm earlier treaties. This fact has lead some scholars to suggest that the

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

agreements signed with the Mi'kmaq in 1760 and 1761 formed the basis of a new relationship, and that the
British considered the former treaties, and specifically those made in 1726 and 1752, to be null and void.
However, other scholars have argued that the earlier treaties continued in force and could be only terminated
by some formal means.
A closer examination of the Mi'kmaq treaties suggests continuity between the 1726 treaty and those signed
in l760 and 1761. Each of the first six articles of the later treaties correspond to the first six articles of the
1726 treaty. However, in each case the later clauses modify the earlier agreement. To take one example:
article two of the 1726 treaty had stipulated that the Mi'kmaq would not 'molest His Majesty's Subjects or
their Dependents in their Settlements already made.' The 1760/61 treaty reproduced the same language of
this article with one significant exception. The treaty now read that the Mi'kmaq would not molest 'His
Majesty's subject or their Dependents in their settlements already made or hereafter to be made.' It would
seem therefore that both the British and the Mi'kmaq considered the 1726 treaty to form the basis of their
relationship. However, they agreed that some changes were necessary and so the 1760/61 treaties spoke to
those changes. One of those changes was the inclusion of the truck house clause which was repeated
verbatim from the treaty signed earlier with the Maliseet and Passamaquoddy.

The 1778 and 1779 Treaties


The two last treaties were signed in 1778 and 1779. Both treaties were occasioned by attempts by agents
from the United Colonies (later known as the United States) to enlist the support of both the Mi'kmaq and
Maliseet in their rebellion against British rule. These efforts had resulted in a number of warriors assisting the
colonists attacks upon Fort Cumberland in 1776. In order to stave off further assistance given to the rebels,
the Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Nova Scotia, Michael Francklin convened a council with Maliseet from
the St. John River and with Mi'kmaq delegates from Richibouctou, Miramichi and from Chignecto. These
discussions took place at Fort Howe at the mouth of the St. John River on 24 September 1778 and resulted
in the delegates promising not to assist the rebels and that they would 'follow my (their) hunting and fishing
in a peaceable and quiet manner.'
About a year later, Francklin signed another treaty with Mi'kmaq representing communities between Cape
Tormentine (in southeast New Brunswick) and the Baye des Chaleurs in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Like the
1778 treaty, the 1779 treaty was necessitated by disturbances between the Mi'kmaq and the colonists,
raising fears that some communities were siding the United Colonies against Great Britain. However, like the
treaty signed a year earlier with the Maliseet, the 1779 treaty did not alter existing treaty relationships. The
most significant aspect of the treaty is the fact that each of the Mi'kmaq communities reaffirmed their treaty
relationship with the British on the basis of treaties signed with Governor Charles Lawrence in 1760/61.
Among the Mi'kmaq who did so were those communities living along the Baye des Chaleurs.
Though it is possible that a representative from the Gaspe attended the treaty signing in Halifax on 25 June
1761, there is no document which shows this. However, as the 1779 treaty makes clear, the Mi'kmaq
political structure was far more complicated than we sometimes think. In this case, the 1779 treaty clearly
indicates that the Miramichi Mi'kmaq were acting and signing the treaty on behalf of those communities
located along the Baye des Chaleurs. This not only shows that these communities were included in the treaty
but also more importantly that they had probably delegated the Miramichi Mi'kmaq to sign the 25 June 1761
treaty on their behalf.

The Period after 1780


With the creation of the United States as an independent country in the early 1780s, thousands of colonists
who had remained loyal to the British Crown sought refuge from the punitive actions of their neighbours by
fleeing northward to Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Canada. Many chose to come to Nova Scotia
which up until 1784 encompassed not only the present-day limits of Nova Scotia but also New Brunswick.
The flood of new refugees created a new dynamic in the relationships between the colonial governments and
the aboriginal communities. One of the most important changes was the gradual erosion of the meanings
given to the treaties. Both the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet, however, continued to believe that the treaties
formed the basis of their relationships with settler governments. Over the following two hundred years, both
communities petitioned governments, attempting to force them to reconsider their policies in light of the
legal regime created by the treaties. They were particularly concerned that governments had failed to honour

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

agreements regarding the protection of fishing, hunting, and planting grounds and pointed to the fact that
most of their people were impoverished.
Though governments refused to honour the treaties, they did agree to create reserves. These reserves were
established throughout much of Atlantic Canada in the 19th century. In general, the reserves were placed in
areas which by then were frequented by Maliseet and Mi'kmaq families. In some cases, this led to a reserve's
location in an area used by the community. However, this was not always true, particularly in Nova Scotia
where disputes over land were often settled in favour of white settlers. Moreover, the reserves were usually
too small and the land too infertile to support a large population.

Footnotes:
1. This paper is the work of Prof. Wicken, PhD, and represents his views respecting the Crown/
Aboriginal treaty relationship in the Atlantic. It does not necessarily represent the views of the federal
government.(return to the source paragraph)
2. C. Bruce Fergusson, ed., Clarkson's Mission to America 1791-1792 (Halifax: 1971), 69; "Lettre de M.
l'Abb Maillard sur les missions de l'Acadie et particulirement sur les missions micmaques Madame
de Drucourt," in Les Soires Canadiennes (1863), 354.(return to the source paragraph)
3. John Gyles, Memoirs of Odd Adventures and Signal Deliverances (Boston: 1806), first ed., 1736, 10;
'Lettre de M. l'abb Maillard, 306.(return to the source paragraph)
Date modified: 2010-09-15
Source:
Government of Canada
http://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/
eng/1100100028599/1100
100028600

20140619-5051 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016


20160127-5041
6/19/2014 9:21:51
12:59:45AM
PM

Save Passamaquoddy Bay


A 3-Nation Alliance
(US Passamaquoddy Canada)
PO Box 222 Eastport, ME 04631
(207)853-2922
info@SavePassamaquoddyBay.org
www.SavePassamaquoddyBay.org

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary


Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
eFiled on 2014 June 19
Re: Downeast LNG, Docket Nos. CP07-52-000, CP07-53-000, and CP07-53-001
Passamaquoddy Indian Township Tribal Government
Dear Ms. Bose,
Accompanying please find a 2014 June 11 letter from the Passamaquoddy Indian
Township Tribal Government Vice Chief Clayton Sockabasin to Elizabeth Molly of the
FERC Office of the General Council. In the letter, the Tribal Government expresses its
opposition to the proposed Downeast LNG project, due to negative impacts the project
would have on tribal sovereignty, tribal rights, tribal lands, and tribal religious assets.
Downeast LNG presents unreconcilable Environmental Justice and Tribal sovereignty
complications. FERC must deny Downeast LNGs application permits.
Very truly,
Robert Godfrey
Researcher & Webmaster
CC:"
"
"
"
"

Sen. Angus King


Sen. Susan Collins
Rep. Mike Michaud
Rep. Chellie Pingree
Service List

20140619-5051 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016


20160127-5041
6/19/2014 9:21:51
12:59:45AM
PM

Indien Eounshi

Tribal Chief
Joseph Socobasin

Tribal Council Members


Sonjo Dana

Tribal Vice Chief

Wade

Clayton Sockabasin

Lola

Leslie Nicholas
Nipawset Sabattus
Richard Sabattus
Gerald Stevens

Tribal Representative
Madonna Soctomah
Eox 301, Princeton, Iulaine, 04668, Tel. (Z0II Ig6J3ltI

June 11,2014

Elizabeth Molly
Office of the General Counsel
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
202-502-8771

RE: nowneast LNG Docket Nos. cp07-52-000: cp07-53-000: cp07-53-001


Dear Elizabeth:
The Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township is very concerned about making sure our voice is
being heard on the
proposed Downeast LNG Project

The Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township is against the proposed construction of the Downeast LNG
Project located in Robinston, Maine.
This project proposes to run a pipeline across/under an island set aside for the Tribe in the 1794 Treaty.
This project proposes a build a pier within traditional canoe/boat water route used by the Tribe.
This project proposes to buitd its terminal in Mill Cove, a place held in reverence Uy tne tribat people
for its
religious significance
The Passamaquoddy Tribe understands the unique relationship between the United States and Indian
tribes as defined
by treaties, statutes, and judicial decisions. Indian tribes havi various sovereign authorities, including
the power to
make and enforce laws, administer justice, and manage and control their linds and resources. tlirough
several
Executive Orders and a Presidential Memorandum, departments and agencies of the Executive
Branch have been
urged to consult with federally recognized Indian tribeJ in a manner that recognizes the government-to-government
relationship between these agencies and tribes. In essence, this means that coniultation should
involve direct contact
between agencies and tribes and should recognize the status of the tribes as governmental
sovereigns.
We understand that the Government will endeavor to work with Indian tribes on a government-to-government
basis,
and will seek to address the effects ofproposed projects on tribal rights and .".ourf",
through coniultation pursuant
to the Commission's trust responsibility, the Federal Power Act, thi Natural Gas Act, the p-ublic
Utility Regulatory
Policies Act, Section 32 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, Preservation Act, and in
the Ctmm-ission,s
environmental and decisional documents.
lVe hope our concerns are heard during this process of deciding oulcome of our homeland.

Sincerely,

Vice Ch ief Claybn Sockabasin


Passamaquoddy Tribe

20140619-5051 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016


20160127-5041
6/19/2014 9:21:51
12:59:45AM
PM

Document Content(s)
01_Indian_Township_Objections.PDF.....................................1-1
02_Indian_Township_Objection_Letter.PDF...............................2-2

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

ORIGIN
Pleasant
Point
Reservation
P.o.
Box 343
Perry.
Maine
04667
Tel. (207)
853-2600

June
9,
2014
Kimberly
D.Bose,Secretary
Federal
EnergyRegulatory
Commission
888
First
Street, NERoom1A
Washington,
DC 20426
Re:
Downeast
LNG,
Docket
Nos.
CP07-52-000,
CP07-53-000,
andCP07-53-001
Dear
Ms.

Bose;

Theproposed
Downeast
LNGproject
at
Mill
Cove
in
Robbinston,
Maine,
would:
1)Damage
ordeatroy,
andimpedeorprevent
ac
cess
to,significant
Passamaquoddy
sacred
andprehistoric
cultural
assets,
most especially
along
the
shoreline
at
Mill
Cove;
continuity
of
access
to those
assets,
assets
thathave
been
2)Eliminate
available,
unimpeded,
to tribal
membersforthousands
ofyears;
withhistoric
andtraditional
Passamaquoddy
navigation
and
3)Conflict
sustenance
fishing
rights
in
Passamaquoddy
Bay;
and
4)Endanger
the
entirePassamaquoddy
population
at
Sipayik
through
designation
asbeingwithin
federally-defined
LNGship
Hazard Zone
2
and
Zon
3;
e
Therefore,
Pleasa
ntPoint
Tribal
Government
adamantly,
andconclusively,
opposes
Federal
Energy
Regulatory
Commission
(FERC)
approval
ofthe
Downeast LNG
project.
:;.a-

__

d,
;':l

R.Cia
Chief
Pleasant
Point
Passamaquoddy
Tribe

ccPleasant
Point
Passamaquoddy
Tribal
Council

'" '

..,
r.fT\

....
0=0

:;;:

".<:0
...... i"'1
0;;0
"">
-<r
.....,
n{TI
C::J.
-:z:,

:;:f"TI
-,.:;0
:=:'g
..
en-<
en
.....,
.....,
<5
::z:

tJ)

o.::e

l'
:;J:i?l ""1
:J:llJI":::
_: r

..n::Q'l
!!!
..

0.."
.
:z:
--I

i'ii

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

Save Passamaquoddy Bay


A 3-Nation Alliance
(US Passamaquoddy Canada)
PO Box 222 Eastport, ME 04631
(207)853-2922
info@SavePassamaquoddyBay.org
www.SavePassamaquoddyBay.org

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary


Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
eFiled on 2013 May 13
Re: Downeast LNG, Docket Nos. CP07-52-000, CP07-53-000, and CP07-53-001
Passamaquoddy Tribal Rights in Waterway
Dear Ms. Bose,
In the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the US Coast Guard
(USCG) requires Downeast LNG to obtain a letter of acceptance from the
Passamaquoddy agreeing to Downeast LNGs proposed use of the waterway.
The applicant must provide written verification to the Coast Guard of collaboration
with and acceptance from the Passamaquoddy Nation, ensuring its jurisdictional
interests and public safety and security needs associated with this project are
adequately met. (Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, p67)
The Saint Croix Schoodic Band of Passamaquoddy are based in St. Andrews, New
Brunswick, Canada, and have Native rights in the United States.
On 2013 April 19, Saint Croix Schoodic Band of Passamaquoddy Chief Hugh Akagi sent
an email, with an attachment, to USCG Port Security Specialist Alan Moore
disapproving of Downeast LNG use of the waterway (see accompanying files:
02_Akagi_email.pdf and 03_Akagi_attachment.pdf).
The Saint Croix Schoodic Band of Passamaquoddy has formally notified the USCG that
it disapproves of Downeast LNGs proposed use of the waterway. Therefore, Downeast
LNG has failed, and cannot comply with, the Coast Guard jurisdictional and public
safety and security requirement.
Very truly,
Robert Godfrey
Researcher & Webmaster

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

CC:"
"
"
"
"
"

Sen. Angus King


Sen. Susan Collins
Rep. Mike Michaud
Rep. Chellie Pingree
Rebecca Boucher, Esq.
Service List

United Nations

United Nations
Declaration
on the Rights
of Indigenous
PeopleS

Published by the United Nations


07-58681March 20084,000

United Nations

United Nations Declaration


on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly


[without reference to a Main Committee (A/61/L.67 and Add.1)]

61/295. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of


Indigenous Peoples
The General Assembly,
Taking note of the recommendation of the Human Rights Council contained in its resolution 1/2 of 29 June 2006,1 by which the
Council adopted the text of the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
Recalling its resolution 61/178 of 20 December 2006, by which
it decided to defer consideration of and action on the Declaration
to allow time for further consultations thereon, and also decided to
conclude its consideration before the end of the sixty-first session of
the General Assembly,
Adopts the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples as contained in the annex to the present resolution.
107th plenary meeting
13 September 2007
Annex

United Nations Declaration on the


Rights of Indigenous Peoples
The General Assembly,
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United
Nations, and good faith in the fulfilment of the obligations assumed
by States in accordance with the Charter,
Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples,
while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider
themselves different, and to be respected as such,

1.
See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session,
Supplement No. 53 (A/61/53), part one, chap. II, sect.A.

Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind,
Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on
or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of
national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are
racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and
socially unjust,
Reaffirming that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights,
should be free from discrimination of any kind,
Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession
of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from
exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance
with their own needs and interests,
Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent
rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands,
territories and resources,
Recognizing also the urgent need to respect and promote the rights
of indigenous peoples affirmed in treaties, agreements and other
constructive arrangements with States,
Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organizing themselves for political, economic, social and cultural enhancement and
in order to bring to an end all forms of discrimination and oppression wherever they occur,
Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over developments
affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable
them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote their development in accordance with their
aspirations and needs,
Recognizing that respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures and
traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment,
Emphasizing the contribution of the demilitarization of the lands
and territories of indigenous peoples to peace, economic and social
2

progress and development, understanding and friendly relations


among nations and peoples of the world,
Recognizing in particular the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training,
education and well-being of their children, consistent with the rights
of the child,
Considering that the rights affirmed in treaties, agreements and other
constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples
are, in some situations, matters of international concern, interest,
responsibility and character,
Considering also that treaties, agreements and other constructive
arrangements, and the relationship they represent, are the basis for a
strengthened partnership between indigenous peoples and States,
Acknowledging that the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights2 and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,2 as well as the
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,3 affirm the fundamental importance of the right to self-determination of all peoples,
by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and
freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,
Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used to
deny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in conformity with international law,
Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples
in this Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative relations between the State and indigenous peoples, based on principles
of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination
and good faith,
Encouraging States to comply with and effectively implement all
their obligations as they apply to indigenous peoples under international instruments, in particular those related to human rights, in
consultation and cooperation with the peoples concerned,
Emphasizing that the United Nations has an important and continuing role to play in promoting and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples,
See resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.

2.

A/CONF.157/24 (Part I), chap. III.

3.

Believing that this Declaration is a further important step forward


for the recognition, promotion and protection of the rights and
freedoms of indigenous peoples and in the development of relevant
activities of the United Nations system in this field,
Recognizing and reaffirming that indigenous individuals are entitled without discrimination to all human rights recognized in international law, and that indigenous peoples possess collective rights
which are indispensable for their existence, well-being and integral
development as peoples,
Recognizing that the situation of indigenous peoples varies from
region to region and from country to country and that the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical
and cultural backgrounds should be taken into consideration,
Solemnly proclaims the following United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to be
pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect:
Article 1
Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms
as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights4 and international human rights law.
Article 2
Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other
peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind
of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that
based on their indigenous origin or identity.
Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue
of that right they freely determine their political status and freely
pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination,
have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to

Resolution 217 A (III).

4.

their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Article 5
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their
distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions,
while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in
the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.
Article 6
Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.
Article 7
1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.
2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom,
peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to
any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly
removing children of the group to another group.
Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be
subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and
redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them
of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values
or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing
them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim
or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite
racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

Article 9
Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an
indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions
and customs of the community or nation concerned. No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.
Article 10
Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or
territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and
informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after
agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with
the option of return.
Article 11
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their
cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain,
protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of
their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts,
designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts
and literature.
2. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which
may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous
peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent
or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.
Article 12
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practise, develop
and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy
to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control
of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their
human remains.
2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair,
transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with
indigenous peoples concerned.

Article 13
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and
transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate
and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is
protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand
and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings,
where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other
appropriate means.
Article 14
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their
educational systems and institutions providing education in their
own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of
teaching and learning.
2. Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to
all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination.
3. States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have
access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.
Article 15
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity
of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be
appropriately reflected in education and public information.
2. States shall take effective measures, in consultation and cooperation with the indigenous peoples concerned, to combat prejudice
and eliminate discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among indigenous peoples and all other segments of society.
Article 16
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in
their own languages and to have access to all forms of non-indigenous
media without discrimination.
7

2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that State-owned


media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. States, without
prejudice to ensuring full freedom of expression, should encourage privately owned media to adequately reflect indigenous cultural
diversity.
Article 17
1. Indigenous individuals and peoples have the right to enjoy fully
all rights established under applicable international and domestic
labour law.
2. States shall in consultation and cooperation with indigenous
peoples take specific measures to protect indigenous children from
economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely
to be hazardous or to interfere with the childs education, or to be
harmful to the childs health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or
social development, taking into account their special vulnerability
and the importance of education for their empowerment.
3. Indigenous individuals have the right not to be subjected to any
discriminatory conditions of labour and, inter alia, employment or
salary.
Article 18
Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making
in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives
chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures,
as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decisionmaking institutions.
Article 19
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous
peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in
order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that
may affect them.
Article 20
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their
political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure
in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.
8

2. Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and


development are entitled to just and fair redress.
Article 21
1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to
the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including,
inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training
and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.
2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic
and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights
and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and
persons with disabilities.
Article 22
1. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs
of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration.
2. States shall take measures, in conjunction with indigenous peoples,
to ensure that indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection
and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination.
Article 23
Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development. In
particular, indigenous peoples have the right to be actively involved
in developing and determining health, housing and other economic
and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to
administer such programmes through their own institutions.
Article 24
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines
and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of
their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to
all social and health services.
2. Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of
the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States
shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively
the full realization of this right.
9

Article 25
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their
distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or
otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal
seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to
future generations in this regard.
Article 26
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and
resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and
control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use,
as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.
3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands,
territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with
due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the
indigenous peoples concerned.
Article 27
States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and
transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples
laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and
adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands,
territories and resources, including those which were traditionally
owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have
the right to participate in this process.
Article 28
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can
include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they
have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which
have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without
their free, prior and informed consent.
2. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned,
compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources

10

equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation


or other appropriate redress.
Article 29
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands
or territories and resources. States shall establish and implement
assistance programmes for indigenous peoples for such conservation
and protection, without discrimination.
2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or
disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed
consent.
3. States shall also take effective measures to ensure, as needed,
that programmes for monitoring, maintaining and restoring the
health of indigenous peoples, as developed and implemented by the
peoples affected by such materials, are duly implemented.
Article 30
1. Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories
of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interest or
otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoples
concerned.
2. States shall undertake effective consultations with the indigenous peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in
particular through their representative institutions, prior to using
their lands or territories for military activities.
Article 31
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect
and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their
sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic
resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna
and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional
games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to
maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property
over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional
cultural expressions.

11

2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.
Article 32
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop
priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or
territories and other resources.
2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the
approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other
resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress
for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to
mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.
Article 33
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions.
This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain
citizenship of the States in which they live.
2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures
and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with
their own procedures.
Article 34
Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they
exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international
human rights standards.
Article 35
Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the responsibilities
of individuals to their communities.

12

Article 36
1. Indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by international
borders, have the right to maintain and develop contacts, relations
and cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political,
economic and social purposes, with their own members as well as
other peoples across borders.
2. States, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, shall take effective measures to facilitate the exercise and ensure
the implementation of this right.
Article 37
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive
arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have
States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.
2. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishing
or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in treaties,
agreements and other constructive arrangements.
Article 38
States, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples,
shall take the appropriate measures, including legislative measures,
to achieve the ends of this Declaration.
Article 39
Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and
technical assistance from States and through international cooperation, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this Declaration.
Article 40
Indigenous peoples have the right to access to and prompt decision
through just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and
disputes with States or other parties, as well as to effective remedies
for all infringements of their individual and collective rights. Such
a decision shall give due consideration to the customs, traditions,
rules and legal systems of the indigenous peoples concerned and
international human rights.

13

Article 41
The organs and specialized agencies of the United Nations system
and other intergovernmental organizations shall contribute to the full
realization of the provisions of this Declaration through the mobilization, inter alia, of financial cooperation and technical assistance. Ways
and means of ensuring participation of indigenous peoples on issues
affecting them shall be established.
Article 42
The United Nations, its bodies, including the Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues, and specialized agencies, including at the country level, and States shall promote respect for and full application of
the provisions of this Declaration and follow up the effectiveness of
this Declaration.
Article 43
The rights recognized herein constitute the minimum standards for
the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the
world.
Article 44
All the rights and freedoms recognized herein are equally guaranteed to male and female indigenous individuals.
Article 45
Nothing in this Declaration may be construed as diminishing
or extinguishing the rights indigenous peoples have now or may
acquire in the future.
Article 46
1. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for
any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity
or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations
or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would
dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or
political unity of sovereign and independent States.
2. In the exercise of the rights enunciated in the present Declaration, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all shall be
respected. The exercise of the rights set forth in this Declaration
shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law
14

and in accordance with international human rights obligations. Any


such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary
solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for
the rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and most
compelling requirements of a democratic society.
3. The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted
in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for
human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and
good faith.

15

20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

Document Content(s)
Passamaquoddy_Rights_in_Waterway.PDF..................................1-3
Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1760.PDF...............................4-10
Indian_Township_opposition_20140619-5051(29515350).PDF................11-13
Sipayik_opposition_20140612-0030(29474110).PDF........................14-14
St_Croix_Schoodic_Band_opposition_20130513-5040.PDF...................15-16
UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples DRIPS_en.PDF...........17-34