native treaty rights in quoddy waters

8/20/2019 Native Treaty Rights in Quoddy Waters

1/35

Kimberly D. Bose, SecretaryFederal Energy Regulatory Commission888 First Street, NE Room 1AWashington, DC 20426

eFiled on 2016 January 27

Re: Downeast LNG, Docket Nos. CP07-52-000, CP07-53-000, CP07-53-001, andPF14-19, Passamaquoddy Rights in the Waterway

Dear Ms. Bose,

On 2014 August 1 (Accession No. 20140801-5035), Pierce Atwood lawyer MatthewManahan of Pierce Atwood LLP, representing Downeast LNG, argued that the Passa-maquoddy Tribe has no rights in the marine waterway as a result of the 1980 Maine In-dian Land Claims Settlement Act. Thus, he argued, Downeast LNG is not obligated tofulfill the US Coast Guard Captain of the Port requirement based on the National Envi-ronmental Policy Act (NEPA), and as a stated requirement in the Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement, to obtain a letter of agreement from the Passamaquoddy Tribe con-senting to Downeast LNG!s use of the shared waterway.[1]

The applicant must provide written verification to the Coast Guard of collaboration withand 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 Passa-maquoddy (and other tribes) and the 1726 Treaty guaranteed to the Passamaquoddythat they would retain their fishing rights.[3]

Pierce Atwood!s opinion failed to consider the rights of the Passamaquoddy in Canadianwaters. Passamaquoddy rights in Canadian waters are not affected by any Maine law oragreement. Whether or not Maine Passamaquoddy retain rights in the Maine marine

waterway, the Passamaquoddy have never relinquished their inherent rights in the Ca-nadian waterway — the same waterway Downeast LNG ships would need to transit.

Save Passamaquoddy BayA 3-Nation Alliance

(US • Passamaquoddy • Canada)PO Box 222 • Eastport, ME 04631

(207)853-2922info@SavePassamaquoddyBay.orgwww.SavePassamaquoddyBay.org

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 Can-

ada; https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600.

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

http://www.savepassamaquoddybay.org/http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=13545996https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=13545996http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=13545996http://www.savepassamaquoddybay.org/http://www.savepassamaquoddybay.org/


2/35

The three Passamaquoddy tribal governments — Indian Township, Sipayik/PleasantPoint, and St. Croix Schoodic Band — have all expressed their adamant disapproval ofthe Downeast LNG project.[4],[5],[6] They will not be providing a letter of agreement toallow Downeast LNG ship transits. Downeast LNG cannot comply with the US CoastGuard requirement.

And then, there is the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which theUnited States is a signatory.[7] The agreement recognizes the rights of indigenous peo-ples, including rights for cultural, religious, and economic purposes, and recognizestheir 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 andinformed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilizationor exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.[8]

By requiring Downeast LNG to obtain Passamaquoddy Tribal Government consent re-garding shared use of the waterway — including the Canadian waterway — the USCoast Guard is fulfilling US Government obligations 1) under the UN Declaration ofRights of Indigenous Peoples, 2) recognizing First Nations treaty rights in Canada, and3) 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 Canada!s treaty obligations — Downeast LNGhas 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 dismissDowneast LNG from permitting.

Very truly,

Robert GodfreyResearcher & Webmaster

2

4 See accompanying file:

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


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


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


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

8 Ibid.



3/35

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 O"Donnell

Service List

3



4/35

Home > All Topics > Acts, Agreements, Treaties and Land Claims > Land Claims > Comprehensive Claims

> East Coast Negotiations on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Self Government > 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 Gaspé. Theyare important historical documents that can be viewed as the founding documents for the development ofCanada. 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 forboth parties.

Early History

The Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy have inhabited the Atlantic region for thousands of years. Thehree communities believe their ancestors have lived in this area since the beginning of time. Archaeologis

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, PrinEdward Island, along the coast and rivers of eastern New Brunswick, and the Gaspe Peninsula of easternQuebec.

The Maliseet, on the other hand, lived along the St. John River Valley and its tributaries in central NewBrunswick. Some families may also have hunted and fished on the south shore of the St. Lawrence Riverabove Lake Temiscouata.

The Passamaquoddy lived along the St. Croix River and its tributaries though families appear to have livedmainly in coastal areas bordering on Passamaquoddy Bay. Though the Passamaquoddy are often identified

a separate and distinct people, British and French officials stressed the strong cultural and biological tiesbetween the Passamaquoddy and the Maliseet.

Little is known about the history of the Maliseet, the Mi'kmaq and the Passamaquoddy before 1500. We doknow that 500 to 3000 years ago, families from each communities lived in small family groupings and mowith the seasons in search of fish and game. The region's growing season was short but the PassamaquodMi'kmaq and Maliseet were able to rely on plentiful and reliable sources of fish and marine mammals toustain themselves. Salmon, alewives (gaspereaux), herring, sturgeon, cod, mackerel and eels were somehe 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 waspent 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 mucof the winter. Moose were especially valued because of the animal's size. Smaller animals were hunted aswell, including beaver, marten, fox, and otter. Second, Skins and furs were used to make clothing whileinew was used in lieu of nails and porcupine quills to make snowshoes.[Note 2 ] Some animal products h

multiple purposes. Besides being used for clothing, moose hides were also used to make the outer coverinor 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 forhemselves. Therefore, the Maliseet and Mi'kmaq stressed the importance of maintaining a close spiritualelationship with all living organisms, and especially fish and animal spirits. Like other aboriginal people, t

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada


https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010002/1100100010021https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1377605925151/1377605981099https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028568/1100100028572https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100030285/1100100030289https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100030577/1100100030578https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028583/1100100028584https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028589/1100100028591https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600#b1https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600#b2https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600#b3https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010002/1100100010021https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010002/1100100010021https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600#b3https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600#b2https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600#b1https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028589/1100100028591https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028583/1100100028584https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100030577/1100100030578https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100030285/1100100030289https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028568/1100100028572https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1377605925151/1377605981099https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010002/1100100010021


5/35

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 theelationship, 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 15Some scholars believe Mi'kmaq communities were politically organized into the Sante Mawiomi or GrandCouncil. The Sante Mawoimi included a keptin or chief from each of Mi'kma'ki's seven geographical districtThe keptins were elected by their people to represent their interests at the Council. At the head of theCouncil was the Grand Chief who was elected to his position by the keptins. The Grand Chief was assistedhis duties by the Grand Captain.

The precise duties and responsibilities of the Grand Council are not well known. However, the council and members appear to have made decisions on issues of common concern to all communities. One such concwas 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 thahe 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 mostlyishermen, who arrived in March and left in October or November. They were fishing for cod, which thenpopulated 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. Englishishermen only became more prevalent in the late 1500s.

Contact between the fishermen and local aboriginal peoples was always limited, since the fishermen spentonly a short time on land, except in instances where they dried their fish on shore. However, we do knowhat fishermen were present throughout much of the Atlantic region and that they must have had someontact with local Mi'kmaq populations. The fishermen's contact with the Maliseet and Passamaquoddy wakely 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 socbefore the 1500s. Because the Maliseet and Mi'kmaq had never been exposed to these viruses, the resultswere catastrophic. We don't know how many people died. Most demographers suppose that most aborigin

ommunities lost from 50 % to 90% of their original population. This depopulation did not occur all at oncbut took place over one or two generations. Before 1500, the combined Maliseet and Mi'kmaq population hprobably numbered between 10,000 and 15,000. By the 1600s, their numbers were down to half that andpossibly less.

The second major affect of contact was the change wrought by trade. Soon after fishermen began fishing he 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 wereused to make hats. As the demand for such hats increased, so too did the number of beaver furs shippedrom North America. Though the Atlantic region was only a critical component of the trade in the first half

he 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, familiesneeded to trap furs in greater quantities than they had ever done before. It also meant that families spenmore 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 isbecause in the early 1600s European nations established colonies in the region and the correspondence frhese regimes provide information about local indigenous populations. Such correspondence, however, wa

often sporadic and so there are few records to give a chronological overview of either the Maliseet or theMi'kmaq in the post-contact period. We cannot document the major events occurring within each society ihe same manner that we can for England or France at the same time. What we know about the Mi'kmaq he Maliseet comes exclusively from European written accounts.



6/35

The 1726 Treaty

Great Britain's interest in trade lay at the foundation of the series of treaties negotiated with the Mi'kmaq,he 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, tBritish were concerned with each community's relationship with the French Crown. That alliance, thought British, undermined their own efforts to establish some form of political control over the region. To that enhe treaties created a series of laws which were designed to normalize relations between the British and thegion's three aboriginal societies.

The first of the treaties was signed in 1726, formally bringing to an end a three year long war between NeEngland and the Wabanaki. The Wabanaki was a political alliance of the major aboriginal communities livinn the Atlantic region. The alliance was composed of four societies: the Mi'kmaq, the Maliseet, thePassamaquoddy and a loosely-allied group of communities living between the Penobscot and the KennebeRivers. This allied group is often called the Abenaki.

The war, which had begun in 1722, was mainly sparked by Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Abenaki concernsegarding 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, theishermen's aggressive actions sparked concerns about possible interference in the fishery. As well, theAbenaki were upset with attempts by New England land companies to alienate lands at the mouth of theKennebec 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 motivation negotiating a treaty with the British in 1726.

The 1726 treaty is composed of two separate documents. One document, termed the articles of peace andagreement, was signed by the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy. This document contains the promismade by each of the three communities to the British. In total, 77 aboriginal male delegates signed this pof the treaty. The second document, often referred to as the reciprocal promises, contain those promisesmade by the British to the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy. This part of the treaty was signed by tolony's principal military leaders, Lawrence Armstrong and John Doucett. Armstrong was the Lieutenant-

Governor of Nova Scotia while Doucett was the Lieutenant-Governor of the British garrison at AnnapolisRoyal.

The 1726 treaty and later treaties are unique as much for what they do say as for what they do not. Thereaties 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 sogeneral 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 Maliseetagreed not to molest His Majesty's subject in their settlements 'already made or lawfully to be made.' By lause, 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 treahowever, did not define 'lawfully.' This issue might have been addressed in the treaty negotiations but theminutes of these discussions are not extant. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that the two sides tohe agreement agreed that future settlement would be a subject of future negotiations.

n 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 the treaty was signed at 1726. However, it is not clear whether or not all those lands outside the 'existingettlements' 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

igned after 1726. This was different from what transpired in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when Canadian federal government negotiated a series of treaties with western natives. Those treaties, which aoften called the numbered treaties, involved the surrender of aboriginal lands to the federal government.



7/35

exchange, communities received some form of compensation, including the provision that separate reservwould be established for them. Such provisions were not part of the treaties signed with the Maliseet andMi'kmaq.

As is apparent from this article and others, the British were attempting to bring the Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, anPassamaquoddy under the dictates of British law. However, this was far from a simple process. In 1726 thBritish lacked any real physical presence in Nova Scotia. There were no English settlers and the military pat Annapolis Royal and Canso totaled at most 400 men. The bulk of the population was Acadian andMi'kmaq. Given the lack of any real British presence, British law had no real force in Mi'kmaq, Maliseet orPassamaquoddy communities. Disputes between villagers and with people from other communities were

ettled according to the customary laws the people themselves had developed to deal with theirommunities' problems. In this sense, the treaties were not intended to impose a new legal system on theegion'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 littledocumentation.

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 necessarybecause up until the late 1750s, the Mi'kmaq remained allied with France and during periods of British-

French conflict, many communities chose to side with the French against the British. To a large degree, thdecision was dictated by geography. For instance, up until 1758, France retained de jure (legal) control ovle 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 sidewith France, a position that had as much to do with practicalities as with their political or cultural affinitieswith French officialdom. Thus, the treaties of 1749, 1752, and 1760/61 were negotiated to reaffirm the peafter periods of war.

Each of these later treaties was different. The 1749 treaty, which was concluded at the end of yet anotherBritish-French conflict (1744-48), reaffirmed the 1726 treaty and did not in any manner modify it. As wellhe treaty was only signed with the Maliseet and with one Mi'kmaq community. Other Mi'kmaq communitiefused to do so, a position which they adopted in anger over the British decision to establish a newettlement 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 GoverHopson and Jean-Baptiste Cope, chief sakamow of Shubenacadie, a community located along the shores ohe Shubenacadie River in central Nova Scotia. Some scholars have argued that Jean-Baptiste Cope was t

Grand Chief and that in signing the treaty, he did so in the name of all Mi'kmaq communities. Not allcholars, however, agree and point out that the treaty does not say that Cope was Grand Chief. Nor do threaty minutes say so. Nonetheless, there is evidence that Cope tried to convince other communities to sihe 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 botLa Heve and Cape Sable communities had come to some form of agreement with British administrators af

1752. However, not all scholars share this viewpoint and argue that no treaty for either community existsnor 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 relationshipbetween 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 andFishing as usual and that if they shall think a Truck house needful at the River ChibenaccadieShubenacadie), or any other place of their resort they shall have the same built and proper merchandiseodged therein to be exchanged for what the Indians shall have to dispose of and that in the mean time thaid Indians shall have free liberty to bring for Sale to Halifax or any other Settlement within the Provincekins, feathers, fowl, fish or any other thing they shall have to sell where they shall liberty to dispose ther



8/35

o the best Advantage.'

For the British, this provision was a critical measure in attempting to wean the Mi'kmaq from their friendlyelationships with the Acadians and French officials in Ile Royale and Ile St. Jean. The British wanted to fo

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 nfluence in Ile Royale (Cape Breton Island), Ile St-Jean (Prince Edward Island), and the present-day limitNew Brunswick - to sign the treaty foundered and from the middle months of 1753, relations between theBritish and the Mi'kmaq degenerated. The eruption of war in the Ohio Valley between British and French

orces 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.

n the ensuing conflict - known in the British colonies as the French and Indian War and in Europe as theSeven Years War - the British accomplished what they had long desired: the total defeat of French coloniaorces in North America. This victory was sealed in four major campaigns against the four of the principalFrench 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 June1760.

n the midst of these campaigns, the British initiated peace discussions with the Maliseet, Passmaquoddy 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

oncluded with the signing of a separate peace treaty with them at Halifax on February 22, 1760. The treawas later ratified by individual Maliseet and Passamaquoddy communities at Fort Frederick, a British fort no 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, reaty also modified that agreement. The most important aspect of the new agreement was the creation oommercial 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 establia truck house. When asked if they had anything to propose, the Maliseet representatives replied 'their Tribhad not directed them to propose any thing further than they might be a Truck house established, for theurnishing them with necessaries, in Exchange for their Peltry, and that it might, at present, be at FortFrederick.' Governor Lawrence, speaking on behalf of the Nova Scotia Council replied that upon the

atification 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 ashall be necessary for them.'

The Maliseet-Passamaquoddy treaty of February 1760 formed the basis on which later treaties were signewith individual Mi'kmaq communities in 1760 and 1761. The first of these Mi'kmaq treaties was signed on March, 1760 with three communities: the Shubenacadie, La Have, and Richibuctou Mi'kmaq. Later treatieswere finalized with communities from Cape Breton, Miramichi, Pokemouche, Shediac (all signed on 25 Jun1761), 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 o761, later documentation suggests that the British thought they had done so. However, the issue of who parties to the treaty continues to be a matter of some controversy, particularly in the wake of the SupremCourt of Canada's decision in R. v. Marshall in 1999.

There are both similarities and differences between the treaty signed with the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy inFebruary 1760 and those treaties signed later with Mi'kmaq communities. The most important difference what the February treaty specifically reaffirmed earlier treaties made with the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy. Inhis case, the texts of both the 1726 and 1749 treaties were included. At the same time, the treaty alsontroduced several new agreements and so modified the British relationship with the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy. The most important addition was the truck house clause.

The Mi'kmaq treaties assumed a different form. Unlike the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy treaty, the Mi'kmaqreaties did not specifically reaffirm earlier treaties. This fact has lead some scholars to suggest that the



9/35

agreements signed with the Mi'kmaq in 1760 and 1761 formed the basis of a new relationship, and that thBritish 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 terminaby some formal means.

A closer examination of the Mi'kmaq treaties suggests continuity between the 1726 treaty and those signen l760 and 1761. Each of the first six articles of the later treaties correspond to the first six articles of the1726 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 orheir Dependents in their Settlements already made.' The 1760/61 treaty reproduced the same language

his article with one significant exception. The treaty now read that the Mi'kmaq would not molest 'HisMajesty's subject or their Dependents in their settlements already made or hereafter to be made.' It wouleem therefore that both the British and the Mi'kmaq considered the 1726 treaty to form the basis of theielationship. However, they agreed that some changes were necessary and so the 1760/61 treaties spokehose 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 agentsrom the United Colonies (later known as the United States) to enlist the support of both the Mi'kmaq andMaliseet in their rebellion against British rule. These efforts had resulted in a number of warriors assisting

olonists attacks upon Fort Cumberland in 1776. In order to stave off further assistance given to the rebehe Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Nova Scotia, Michael Francklin convened a council with Maliseet frhe 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 resulten the delegates promising not to assist the rebels and that they would 'follow my (their) hunting and fishn a peaceable and quiet manner.'

About a year later, Francklin signed another treaty with Mi'kmaq representing communities between CapeTormentine (in southeast New Brunswick) and the Baye des Chaleurs in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Like the1778 treaty, the 1779 treaty was necessitated by disturbances between the Mi'kmaq and the colonists,aising fears that some communities were siding the United Colonies against Great Britain. However, like treaty signed a year earlier with the Maliseet, the 1779 treaty did not alter existing treaty relationships. T

most significant aspect of the treaty is the fact that each of the Mi'kmaq communities reaffirmed their treaelationship 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 Jun1761, there is no document which shows this. However, as the 1779 treaty makes clear, the Mi'kmaqpolitical structure was far more complicated than we sometimes think. In this case, the 1779 treaty clearlyndicates that the Miramichi Mi'kmaq were acting and signing the treaty on behalf of those communitiesocated along the Baye des Chaleurs. This not only shows that these communities were included in the trebut also more importantly that they had probably delegated the Miramichi Mi'kmaq to sign the 25 June 17reaty on their behalf.

The Period after 1780With the creation of the United States as an independent country in the early 1780s, thousands of coloniswho had remained loyal to the British Crown sought refuge from the punitive actions of their neighbours bleeing northward to Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Canada. Many chose to come to Nova Scotiawhich 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 ahe 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 treatiesormed the basis of their relationships with settler governments. Over the following two hundred years, boommunities petitioned governments, attempting to force them to reconsider their policies in light of theegal regime created by the treaties. They were particularly concerned that governments had failed to hon



10/35

Date modified: 2010-09

Source:

Government of Canada

http://www.aadnc-

aandc.gc.ca/

eng/1100100028599/11

100028600

agreements regarding the protection of fishing, hunting, and planting grounds and pointed to the fact thatmost of their people were impoverished.

Though governments refused to honour the treaties, they did agree to create reserves. These reserves we

established throughout much of Atlantic Canada in the 19th century. In general, the reserves were placed areas which by then were frequented by Maliseet and Mi'kmaq families. In some cases, this led to a reservocation in an area used by the community. However, this was not always true, particularly in Nova Scotiawhere disputes over land were often settled in favour of white settlers. Moreover, the reserves were usuaoo 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 federgovernment.(return to the source paragraph)

2. C. Bruce Fergusson, ed., Clarkson's Mission to America 1791-1792 (Halifax: 1971), 69; "Lettre de Ml'Abbé Maillard sur les missions de l'Acadie et particulièrement sur les missions micmaques à Madamde Drucourt," in Les Soirées 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'abbé Maillard, 306.(return to the source paragraph)


http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600#t1https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600#t2https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600#t3http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600#t3https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600#t2https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600#t1


11/35


eFiled on 2014 June 19

Re: Downeast LNG, Docket Nos. CP07-52-000, CP07-53-000, and CP07-53-001Passamaquoddy Indian Township Tribal Government

Dear Ms. Bose,

Accompanying please find a 2014 June 11 letter from the Passamaquoddy IndianTownship Tribal Government Vice Chief Clayton Sockabasin to Elizabeth Molly of theFERC Office of the General Council. In the letter, the Tribal Government expresses itsopposition to the proposed Downeast LNG project, due to negative impacts the projectwould have on tribal sovereignty, tribal rights, tribal lands, and tribal religious assets.

Downeast LNG presents unreconcilable Environmental Justice and Tribal sovereigntycomplications. FERC must deny Downeast LNG!s application permits.

Very truly,


CC: Sen. Angus King Sen. Susan Collins Rep. Mike Michaud Rep. Chellie Pingree Service List




20140619-5051 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/19/2014 12:59:45 PM20160127-5041 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/27/2016 9:21:51 AM

http://www.savepassamaquoddybay.org/http://www.savepassamaquoddybay.org/


12/35

Tribal

Chief

Joseph

Socobasin

Tribal

Vice

Chief

Clayton

Sockabasin

Tribal

Representative

Madonna

Soctomah

June

11,2014

Tribal

Council

Members

Sonjo

Dana

Wade

Lola

Leslie

Nicholas

Nipawset

Sabattus

Richard

Sabattus

Gerald

Stevens

Eox 301,

Princeton, Iulaine,

04668,

Tel.

(Z0II

Ig6J3ltI

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,

Indien Eounshi

Vice

Ch ief

Claybn

Sockabasin

Passamaquoddy

Tribe



13/35

Document Content(s)

01_Indian_Township_Objections.PDF.....................................1-1

02_Indian_Township_Objection_Letter.PDF...............................2-2



14/35

O R I G

J u n e9 2 0 1 4

Ki m yD . B e , Se c F e d e lE n e yRe g u l a Co mmi s s i o n8 8 8 i tS NE Room1 AWa s h i n g n D C 2 0 4 2 6

PleasantPoint

RservationP oBx 3 4 3• . Mi n e6 6 7

T e ( 2 0 7 )8- 2

Re :wn e a s tL G D o c k e t o s .CP 0 7 - 5 2 0 0 CP 0 7 5 3 0 a n dCP 0 7 - 5 3 0 1

D e a rMs B o s e ;

T h ep r o p o s e dD o wn e a s tL Gp r o j e c ta ti lC o v ei nRo b b i n s n Ma i n e wo u l d :1 ) D a ma g eo rd e a t y a n di md eo rp v e n ta c s i g n i c a n t

P a s s a ma q u o d d y s a c r e da n dp h i s i cc u l r a la s s e mt e s c i a l ya l o n g t h e s h o l i n ea ti l Co v e

2 ) E l i mi n a c o n n u i o fa c c e s s t h o s ea s s e a s s e a t h a v ee na v a i l a b l u n i mp e d e d t r i b a me mb e r o u s a n d so fy e a ;

3 ) Co n i c t wi h i s r i ca n d t r a d i o n a lP a s s a ma q u o d d yn a v i g a t i o na n d

s u s n a n c e s h i n gr i g h i nP a s s a ma q u o d d yB a y ;a n d

4 ) E n d a n g e r t ee n P a s s a ma q u o d d yp o p u l a t i o na tS i p a y i k t h r o u g hd e s i g n a o na si n g wi i nd e l y e n L G s h i pH a z Z o n e2a n dZ o ne 3

T h e r e P l e a s an tP o i n tT i b a lGo v e r n me n ta d a ma n y a n dc o n c l u s i v e l y o p p o s e s e d e lE n e r g yRe g u a Co mmi s s i o n( E RC)a p p v a lo f eD n s t L Gp r o j e c t .

R. Ci aCh i e f

_ d

P l e a s a n tP o i n tP a s s a ma q u o d d yT r i b e

c cP l e a s a n tP o i n tP a s s a ma q u o d d yT i b a lCo u n c i l

;' "'

. " < i0>rn{C :f- , g · e<

0

:

�

»

.

t

�o l '�? "_ r.:! c



15/35


eFiled on 2013 May 13

Re: Downeast LNG, Docket Nos. CP07-52-000, CP07-53-000, and CP07-53-001Passamaquoddy 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 thePassamaquoddy agreeing to Downeast LNG!s proposed use of the waterway.

“The applicant must provide written verification to the Coast Guard of collaborationwith and acceptance from the Passamaquoddy Nation, ensuring its jurisdictionalinterests and public safety and security needs associated with this project areadequately met.” (“Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement,” p67)

The Saint Croix Schoodic Band of Passamaquoddy are based in St. Andrews, NewBrunswick, Canada, and have Native rights in the United States.

On 2013 April 19, Saint Croix Schoodic Band of Passamaquoddy Chief Hugh Akagi sentan email, with an attachment, to USCG Port Security Specialist Alan Mooredisapproving 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 thatit disapproves of Downeast LNG!s proposed use of the waterway. Therefore, DowneastLNG has failed, and cannot comply with, the Coast Guard jurisdictional and public

safety and security requirement.

Very truly,






http://www.savepassamaquoddybay.org/http://www.savepassamaquoddybay.org/


16/35

CC: Sen. Angus King Sen. Susan Collins Rep. Mike Michaud Rep. Chellie Pingree Rebecca Boucher, Esq.

Service List

2



17/35

blished by the United Nations

-58681—March 2008—4,000

United Nations

DECLARATION

on the RIGHTS

of INDIGENOUS

PEOPLES

United Nations

DECLARATION

on the RIGHTS

of INDIGENOUS

PEOPLES

United Nat

United Nations


18/35

United Nations Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples


19/35


20/35

1

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 ofIndigenous Peoples

The General Assembly,

Taking note of the recommendation of the Human Rights Coun-cil contained in its resolution 1/2 of 29 June 2006,1 by which the

Council adopted the text of the United Nations Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples,

Recalling its resolution 61/178 of 20 December 2006, by whichit decided to defer consideration of and action on the Declarationto allow time for further consultations thereon, and also decided toconclude its consideration before the end of the sixty-first session ofthe General Assembly,

Adopts the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples as contained in the annex to the present resolution.

107th plenary meeting13 September 2007

Annex

United Nations Declaration on theRights 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 assumedby 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 considerthemselves 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.


21/35

2

Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and rich-

ness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heri-tage of humankind,

Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based onor advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis ofnational origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences areracist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable andsocially 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 injus-tices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossessionof their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them fromexercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance

with their own needs and interests,

Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherentrights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, eco-nomic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual tradi-tions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands,territories and resources,

Recognizing also the urgent need to respect and promote the rightsof indigenous peoples affirmed in treaties, agreements and otherconstructive arrangements with States,

Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organizing them-selves for political, economic, social and cultural enhancement andin order to bring to an end all forms of discrimination and oppres-sion wherever they occur,

Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over developmentsaffecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable

them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and tra-ditions, and to promote their development in accordance with theiraspirations and needs,

Recognizing that respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures andtraditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable devel-opment and proper management of the environment,

Emphasizing the contribution of the demilitarization of the landsand territories of indigenous peoples to peace, economic and social


22/35

3

progress and development, understanding and friendly relations

among nations and peoples of the world,

Recognizing in particular the right of indigenous families and com-munities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training,education and well-being of their children, consistent with the rightsof the child,

Considering that the rights affirmed in treaties, agreements and otherconstructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoplesare, in some situations, matters of international concern, interest,responsibility and character,

Considering also that treaties, agreements and other constructivearrangements, and the relationship they represent, are the basis for astrengthened partnership between indigenous peoples and States,

Acknowledging that the Charter of the United Nations, the Interna-tional Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights2 and theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,2 as well as the

Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,3 affirm the funda-mental importance of the right to self-determination of all peoples,by virtue of which they freely determine their political status andfreely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,

Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used todeny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in con-formity with international law,

Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoplesin this Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative rela-tions between the State and indigenous peoples, based on principlesof justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discriminationand good faith,

Encouraging States to comply with and effectively implement all

their obligations as they apply to indigenous peoples under inter-national instruments, in particular those related to human rights, inconsultation and cooperation with the peoples concerned,

Emphasizing that the United Nations has an important and continu-ing role to play in promoting and protecting the rights of indig-enous peoples,

2.See resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.

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


23/35

4

Believing that this Declaration is a further important step forward

for the recognition, promotion and protection of the rights andfreedoms of indigenous peoples and in the development of relevantactivities of the United Nations system in this field,

Recognizing and reaffirming that indigenous individuals are enti-tled without discrimination to all human rights recognized in inter-national law, and that indigenous peoples possess collective rights

which are indispensable for their existence, well-being and integraldevelopment as peoples,

Recognizing that the situation of indigenous peoples varies fromregion to region and from country to country and that the signifi-cance of national and regional particularities and various historicaland cultural backgrounds should be taken into consideration,

Solemnly proclaims the following United Nations Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to bepursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect:

Article 1

Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collec-tive or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedomsas recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights4 and international human rights law.

Article 2

Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all otherpeoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kindof discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular thatbased 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 freelypursue 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

4.Resolution 217 A (III).


24/35

5

their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financ-

ing their autonomous functions.

Article 5

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen theirdistinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions,

while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, inthe 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 men-tal 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 toany act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forciblyremoving children of the group to another group.

Article 8

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to besubjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, andredress for:

(a ) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving themof their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural valuesor ethnic identities;

(b ) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessingthem of their lands, territories or resources;

(c ) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aimor 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 inciteracial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.


25/35

6

Article 9

Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to anindigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditionsand customs of the community or nation concerned. No discrimina-tion of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.

Article 10

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands orterritories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior andinformed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and afteragreement 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 theircultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain,protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations oftheir cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts,designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing artsand literature.

2. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which

may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenouspeoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spir-itual property taken without their free, prior and informed consentor in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.

Article 12

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practise, developand teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and cer-emonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacyto their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and controlof 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 cer-emonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair,transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction withindigenous peoples concerned.


26/35


27/35

8

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

media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. States, withoutprejudice to ensuring full freedom of expression, should encour-age privately owned media to adequately reflect indigenous culturaldiversity.

Article 17

1. Indigenous individuals and peoples have the right to enjoy fullyall rights established under applicable international and domesticlabour law.

2. States shall in consultation and cooperation with indigenous

peoples take specific measures to protect indigenous children fromeconomic exploitation and from performing any work that is likelyto be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to beharmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral orsocial development, taking into account their special vulnerabilityand the importance of education for their empowerment.

3. Indigenous individuals have the right not to be subjected to anydiscriminatory conditions of labour and, inter alia, employment orsalary.

Article 18 Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-makingin matters which would affect their rights, through representativeschosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures,as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.

Article 19

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenouspeoples concerned through their own representative institutions inorder to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopt-ing and implementing legislative or administrative measures thatmay affect them.

Article 20

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop theirpolitical, economic and social systems or institutions, to be securein the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and develop-ment, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other eco-nomic activities.


28/35

9

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, tothe improvement of their economic and social conditions, including,inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational trainingand retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.

2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, spe-cial measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economicand social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights

and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children andpersons with disabilities.

Article 22

1. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needsof indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with dis-abilities 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 protectionand guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination.

Article 23

Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop pri-orities and strategies for exercising their right to development. Inparticular, indigenous peoples have the right to be actively involvedin developing and determining health, housing and other economicand social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, toadminister such programmes through their own institutions.

Article 24

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicinesand to maintain their health practices, including the conservation oftheir vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous indi-

viduals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, toall social and health services.

2. Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment ofthe highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Statesshall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressivelythe full realization of this right.


29/35

10

Article 25

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen theirdistinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned orotherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastalseas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities tofuture generations in this regard.

Article 26

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories andresources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or other-

wise used or acquired.

2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop andcontrol the lands, territories and resources that they possess by rea-son 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 withdue respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of theindigenous peoples concerned.

Article 27

States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indige-nous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open andtransparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize andadjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands,territories and resources, including those which were traditionallyowned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall havethe right to participate in this process.

Article 28

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that caninclude restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equita-ble compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which theyhave traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and whichhave been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged withouttheir 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


30/35

11

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 pro-tection of the environment and the productive capacity of their landsor territories and resources. States shall establish and implementassistance programmes for indigenous peoples for such conservationand protection, without discrimination.

2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage ordisposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or ter-

ritories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informedconsent.

3. States shall also take effective measures to ensure, as needed,that programmes for monitoring, maintaining and restoring thehealth of indigenous peoples, as developed and implemented by thepeoples affected by such materials, are duly implemented.

Article 30

1. Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territoriesof indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interest or

otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoplesconcerned.

2. States shall undertake effective consultations with the indig-enous peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and inparticular through their representative institutions, prior to usingtheir lands or territories for military activities.

Article 31

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protectand develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and tra-

ditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of theirsciences, technologies and cultures, including human and geneticresources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of faunaand flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditionalgames and visual and performing arts. They also have the right tomaintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual propertyover such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditionalcultural expressions.


31/35

12

2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effec-

tive measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.

Article 32

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and developpriorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands orterritories and other resources.

2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indig-enous peoples concerned through their own representative institu-tions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to theapproval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other

resources, particularly in connection with the development, utiliza-tion or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redressfor any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken tomitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiri-tual impact.

Article 33

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own iden-tity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions.

This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtaincitizenship of the States in which they live.

2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structuresand to select the membership of their institutions in accordance withtheir own procedures.

Article 34

Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and main-tain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spiri-tuality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they

exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with internationalhuman rights standards.

Article 35

Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the responsibilitiesof individuals to their communities.


32/35

13

Article 36

1. Indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by internationalborders, have the right to maintain and develop contacts, relationsand cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political,economic and social purposes, with their own members as well asother peoples across borders.

2. States, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peo-ples, shall take effective measures to facilitate the exercise and ensurethe implementation of this right.

Article 37

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observ-ance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructivearrangements concluded with States or their successors and to haveStates honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other con-structive arrangements.

2. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishingor 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 andtechnical assistance from States and through international coopera-tion, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this Declaration.

Article 40

Indigenous peoples have the right to access to and prompt decisionthrough just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts anddisputes with States or other parties, as well as to effective remediesfor all infringements of their individual and collective rights. Sucha decision shall give due consideration to the customs, traditions,rules and legal systems of the indigenous peoples concerned andinternational human rights.


33/35

14

Article 41

The organs and specialized agencies of the United Nations systemand other intergovernmental organizations shall contribute to the fullrealization of the provisions of this Declaration through the mobiliza-tion, inter alia, of financial cooperation and technical assistance. Waysand means of ensuring participation of indigenous peoples on issuesaffecting them shall be established.

Article 42

The United Nations, its bodies, including the Permanent Forum onIndigenous Issues, and specialized agencies, including at the coun-

try level, and States shall promote respect for and full application ofthe provisions of this Declaration and follow up the effectiveness ofthis Declaration.

Article 43

The rights recognized herein constitute the minimum standards forthe survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the

world.

Article 44

All the rights and freedoms recognized herein are equally guaran-teed to male and female indigenous individuals.

Article 45

Nothing in this Declaration may be construed as diminishingor extinguishing the rights indigenous peoples have now or mayacquire in the future.

Article 46

1. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying forany State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity

or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nationsor construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which woulddismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity orpolitical unity of sovereign and independent States.

2. In the exercise of the rights enunciated in the present Dec-laration, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all shall berespected. The exercise of the rights set forth in this Declarationshall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law


34/35

15

and in accordance with international human rights obligations. Any

such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessarysolely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect forthe rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and mostcompelling requirements of a democratic society.

3. The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpretedin accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect forhuman rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance andgood faith.


35/35

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


native treaty rights in quoddy waters

Documents