Four councillors signed the agreement, but no supporting BCR has been produced
By James Wastasecoot
Chief Stan Bird says a 22-month funding extension for Peguis Child and Family Services was signed by four councillors outside a duly convened council meeting and without a band council resolution authorizing the decision.
The dispute concerns Canada Fiscal Amendment Agreement No. 2, which extends the federal fiscal agreement for Peguis CFS until Jan. 31, 2028.
The agreement establishes base funding of $79,438,480 for the 2026–27 fiscal year, plus $730,000 for operations and maintenance, bringing the specified federal transfer payment for that year to $80,168,480. Funding for the portion of the 2027–28 fiscal year ending Jan. 31, 2028, is to be adjusted and prorated under the agreement.
Copies of the amendment published in the Peguis CFS 2025–26 annual report bear the signatures of councillors Linda Sinclair, Mary Tyler Bear, Terrence Sinclair and Donna Sutherland. The handwritten dates beside their signatures are May 7, 2026.
Chief Bird and councillor Deno Cameron did not sign the amendment.
In an Aug. 24 update to band members, Bird said the signatures were obtained after a duly convened council meeting on May 7 had been adjourned without approving the amendment.
“A disputed agenda ruling does not authorize councillors to bypass the governance policy,” Bird said. “The proper response was a duly convened meeting, appeal of the ruling, recorded motion, or legal advice, not an outside meeting signature process.”
Bird said no BCR specifically authorizing Amendment Agreement No. 2 has been located or produced.
The disagreement first came into public view during the question period following a July 30 council meeting, when band members in attendance asked council whether the amendment had been validly authorized.
Bird said a duly convened meeting was called for May 7. Councillors wanted the fiscal amendment added to the agenda, but Bird refused because Peguis CFS had not provided information he had requested, including its board policy manual and other governance and operational records.
Councillor Terrence Sinclair said at the July 30 meeting that CFS portfolio holder Linda Sinclair had attempted to place a motion on the floor to add the agreement to the agenda.
Chief Bird would not allow the item to be added. Councillor Terrence Sinclair then moved to adjourn the meeting because he believed it was not being conducted in accordance with the Peguis Governance Policy.
“I put a motion on the floor to end the meeting because it wasn’t being properly conducted,” Sinclair said.
Bird said the agreement was subsequently signed while he was away, approximately one or two weeks after the adjourned meeting.
However, the four councillors’ signatures appearing in the CFS annual report are all dated May 7, the same date as the adjourned council meeting. The documents do not establish the time or place at which the signatures were actually added.
Sinclair maintained that no BCR was signed outside a duly convened meeting. He acknowledged, however, that the funding amendment itself was signed after the meeting had ended.
Sinclair said the councillors were concerned that federal funding had not been flowing since April 1 and that a deadline was approaching.
“We tried to put it on the duly convened meeting agenda,” he said. “Then it was denied.”
Sinclair said he believed signing the agreement was in the best interests of the community.
The amendment states that it may be executed in separate counterparts and delivered by email or fax. That clause permits the parties’ signatures to appear on different copies of the agreement. It does not, on its face, answer the separate question of how Peguis Chief and Council was required to authorize its representatives to sign on behalf of the First Nation.
The signature page states that the amendment was executed by the parties’ “duly authorized representatives.” It does not identify the BCR, council motion or other authorization relied upon by the four councillors.
Earlier BCR covered first extension
During the July 30 meeting, there was initial confusion over whether an earlier BCR authorized the second amendment.
Chief Bird reviewed the available records during the discussion and said the earlier BCR related to the first amendment, which extended the fiscal agreement for one year, from April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026.
Amendment Agreement No. 2 is a separate document. It extends the agreement for another 22 months, from April 1, 2026, to Jan. 31, 2028, and replaces the previous funding schedule.
Bird said the earlier BCR did not authorize that second extension.
“I stand corrected,” Bird said after reviewing the earlier document at the meeting. “The extension agreement was signed, but no BCR.”
In his Aug. 24 update, Bird repeated that, based on the records available to him, he had not seen a BCR specifically authorizing the second amendment.
“There is no BCR to support the signing of the Second Canada Fiscal Amendment Agreement for Peguis Child and Family Services,” he said.
That assertion has not been accepted by all members of council.
Councillor Mary Tyler Bear said during the July 30 question period that legal advice supported the signing because the earlier extension had already been approved.
When members asked Bear to identify the lawyer who provided that advice, she declined to name the lawyer before speaking with legal counsel.
Members then asked council to release the legal basis for the decision, along with the relevant BCR, meeting notice, agenda, approved minutes and recorded vote.
Those records were not produced during the meeting.
Bird said the identity of the lawyer, the substance of the advice and the budget used to pay for it remain legitimate questions for members.
“If legal advice was relied upon to justify the signing of Amendment Agreement Number Two, I believe there is a legitimate question about the basis of that advice and the authority being relied upon,” he said.
Legal advice may be protected by solicitor-client privilege, but council could still disclose who retained the lawyer, which public budget paid the account, the general legal authority relied upon and whether council formally authorized the retainer, without necessarily releasing the full legal opinion.
Councillors defend CFS reporting
The discussion went beyond the signing process and exposed a broader division within council over its relationship with Peguis CFS.
Councillor Terrence Sinclair defended the agency’s accountability record, saying it provides quarterly reports, holds annual general meetings and undergoes audits.
“CFS has been the most accountable and transparent,” he said. “They provide us with a report on everything every three months.”
He invited members to visit his office to review the paperwork supplied to him.
Bird questioned whether those reports contain enough detailed financial and governance information to permit meaningful oversight.
“You could dress up a quarterly report any way you want,” he said.
Bird said he began pressing the agency for information after receiving complaints from families about children being denied services or placed in circumstances that separated them from relatives.
He said he had requested the CFS board policy manual and other non-personal governance and operational documents but had not received them.
“As I speak to you this evening, I still do not have that information,” Bird said in his Aug. 24 update.
Councillor Deno Cameron said he supported Bird’s efforts to obtain answers.
“If there are questions and concerns from our membership, I want those answers until I can support this agency moving forward,” Cameron said.
Several serious allegations about individual child welfare cases and agency spending were raised during the July 30 meeting. Those allegations were not independently verified during the meeting, and Peguis CFS representatives were not present to respond.
Councillor Linda Sinclair, the CFS portfolio holder, left the meeting before question period and was not present to answer members’ questions.
Chief proposes mediated meeting
Bird proposed that council hold a properly noticed and independently mediated special meeting to address the dispute.
He said the agenda should include the continuity of CFS funding, the disputed authorization, disclosure of documents and declarations of any conflicts of interest.
Bird proposed that council require the disclosure of whether any councillor has a related person employed by Peguis CFS, serving on its board, contracting with the agency or otherwise financially affected by the extension.
He also called for Peguis CFS to provide non-personal governance and financial records, including its board policy manual, before council votes on any ratification or future extension.
Bird proposed asking Canada and Manitoba for a temporary bridge arrangement subject to an independent governance review, document disclosure, conflict declarations and temporary oversight.
Only after those steps, he said, should council decide whether Amendment Agreement No. 2 should be ratified, replaced, rejected or withdrawn.
The amendment has already been signed by representatives of Peguis, Peguis CFS and Canada and is being treated in the CFS annual report as an executed agreement. Whether the four councillors had sufficient internal authority to bind Peguis remains the disputed issue.
Bird said the matter could be resolved by producing the documentary record.
“If the agreement was properly authorized, then the records should establish that,” he said. “If legal advice says the four councillors had authority to sign it, then that legal basis should be clearly explained. And if mistakes were made in the process, then we should have the courage to acknowledge them and correct them.”
Bird said the disagreement should not be reduced to competing political camps.
“This should not be about my supporters or your supporters,” he said. “There is only one membership. There is only one Peguis.”