Today’s date is August 24, 2026.
I want to welcome our members to another update. I have been flooded by inquiries from members regarding the signing of the second Canada Fiscal Amendment Agreement for Peguis Child and Family Services. At the July 30, 2026 council meeting, members came forward during question period and asked about the authority for that signing. I allowed the council to respond because I did not sign the extension, I stated at this meeting that based on the records available to me, I had not seen a band council resolution specifically authorizing amendment agreement number two.
This is an important issue; it concerns our children, our families, the authority of your elected chief and council, and our responsibilities as leaders to make decisions based on complete information. So let me try to put this into context. A duly convened meeting was called on May 7, 2026. I was in disagreement with council regarding my refusal to add the second Canada Fiscal Amendment Agreement for Peguis Child and Family Services to the agenda. I could not, in good conscience, put it on the agenda while important information I had requested from Peguis Child and Family Services remained outstanding. If you recall, I had requested the CFS board policy manual and other governance and operational information. Those requests were not satisfied. As I speak to you this evening, I still do not have that information. Councillors were adamant to have it added to the agenda. I did not agree, and at my discretion, because I have that right as a chief, I would not add the item to the duly convened meeting due to missing information. Council therefore called for an adjournment. Approximately one to two weeks later, while I was away, council signed the Amendment Agreement Number Two. It was not signed in a duly convened meeting, and there is no BCR to support the signing of the second Canada Fiscal Amendment Agreement for Peguis Child and Family Services. A disputed agenda ruling does not authorize councillors to bypass the governance policy. The proper response was a duly convened meeting, appeal of the ruling, recorded motion, or legal advice, not an outside meeting signature process. This is where the governance question arises.
Following a duly convened meeting on July 30th, during question period, it came to my attention that the councillors had received legal advice that the amendment could be signed because of a previous authorization. Members asked who provided that legal advice. The name of the lawyer was not disclosed because, and I quote, “This was not a band meeting.” If legal advice was relied upon to justify the signing of the Amendment Agreement Number Two, I believe there is a legitimate question about the basis of that advice, and the authority being relied upon. So, there are questions circulating around the validity of the signing of the agreement, whether there was a BCR to support the signing, and the use of quorum outside of a duly convened meeting. So, what is the purpose of a duly convened meeting? According to the Indian Act, a power, in this case, the amendment agreement, a power given to the First Nation band council is not legally exercised unless it receives the consent of a majority of the councillors who are present at a duly convened meeting of the council, duly convened meetings prevent informal agreements. This rule stops a chief or individual councillors from making binding commitments in writing or by poll, without a real meeting taking place. I mentioned there is no BCR to support the signing of the agreement.
So, what is the purpose of a BCR? A BCR must be passed only at a duly convened meeting, and only, after a recorded motion, seconder, and vote. BCRs cannot be signed into authority until after the vote is recorded. There is no valid BCR supporting the extension of the Second Fiscal Amendment Agreement, just as there is no valid BCR supporting the appointment of the current CFS board. There is also the question of quorum, and when it is valid.
So, when is quorum recognized, and when is it used? A quorum is used by chief and council and is part of the decision-making process, and is only valid provided a duly convened meeting is maintained. I believe there is a way forward.
First, there must be a properly noticed special meeting, with a neutral agenda item. And I quote, Peguis CFS funding continuity, Disputed BCR governance compliance, document disclosure, and conflict declarations. Given the division of the subject, it must also be mediated. There must also be a motion confirming that any CFS extension be passed at a duly convened meeting, and only after a recorded motion, a seconder, and a vote. The third point: a motion requiring the disclosure of whether any councillors has a policy-defined related person employed by Peguis CFS on its board, contracting with it, or otherwise financially affected by the extension. Fourth, a motion requiring CFS to produce non-personal governance and financial documents, including the board policy manual, before any ratification or extension vote. The Peguis Law allows council to request information from the agency, excluding personal information, that council deems necessary. Fifth, a motion asking Canada and Manitoba for a temporary bridge extension, with conditions, including an independent governance review, production of non-personal records to council, conflict declarations, and a temporary oversight table. And finally, only after these motions, a motion on whether the disputed Second Canada Fiscal Amendment Agreement should be rejected, ratified, replaced, or withdrawn.
In conclusion, I want to be clear. When I sign my name as the chief of Peguis First Nation, I sign on behalf of the people of Peguis. I have a responsibility to know what I’m agreeing to, what obligations are being created, where the authority lies, what protections exist for our members and our children, and how accountability is going to work. That is not an unreasonable standard. In fact, I believe this is a minimum standard we should expect from every person sitting at the council table. We cannot resolve serious disagreements by refusing information, avoiding questions, walking away from one another, or dividing members into different camps. And when we are talking about children and families, there should not be sides. This should not be about my supporters or your supporters. There is only one membership. There is only one Peguis.
So where do we go from here?
My position remains the same. I want the outstanding information provided. I want the governance documents available to the elected leadership that is expected to make these decisions. I want the document documentary authority for Amendment Agreement Number Two to be clear, including any BCR council authorization and legal opinion relied upon in its execution, and I want members to be informed. If the agreement was properly authorized, then the records should establish that. 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. This is what accountability means.
I will continue asking these questions. Not because they are easy, and not because they make everybody happy, but because I believe that this is a responsibility as a chief. I cannot promise that every decision I make will be popular. What I can promise is that when I am asked to put my signature on something, something important on behalf of Peguis, I will do everything I can to understand what I am signing. I will ask questions. I will insist on information. And if I do not have the necessary information to make an informed decision, I will not pretend that I do. Our children deserve that standard. Our families deserve that standard, and the people of Peguis deserve that standard from all who are elected to serve them. Migwetch, Ekosi, thank you.