The following Questions, in various forms, have been asked by the Members of Peguis in attendance at community information meetings held to review the nature and scope of the proposed Treaty land entitlement (TLE) settlement now under discussion. The Questions and Answers given are summarized here, as a means of providing all Members with as much information about the proposed TLE settlement as possible and to assist all Members in deciding whether to vote to accept the proposed TLE settlement.
Peguis was one of the 3 TLE claims in the final stages of review by Canada at the time of the conclusion of the 1997 Manitoba Framework Agreement (MFA) on TLE with 19 other First Nations. Since acceptance of the Peguis TLE claim occurred a year after the MFA, it was agreed that the MFA formula could be used to guide the negotiation of the Peguis TLE settlement, resulting in 166,794 acres of additional Reserve land for Peguis. Otherwise, the policy of Canada was that TLE should be determined at the Date of First Survey (DOFS) or amount to 9,637 acres only.
“Grandfathering” simply means that the Peguis TLE negotiations would largely be conducted in a manner and resolved in general accordance with the 1997 MFA -a positive approach for Peguis.
Until the Venne (Lac La Ronge Band, a Treaty 6 FN) case in Saskatchewan was decided in 2001, the Treaty obligations of Canada were uncertain in relation to TLE, at least for numbered Treaties in the Prairies such as Treaty 1. This case affirmed that, unless the language of the Treaty expressly provided otherwise, the date of calculation of TLE is the Date of First Survey (DOFS) of Reserve land under Treaty.
The decision represents current law applicable to Treaty 1. If the Peguis TLE settlement is not approved by our Members, it is likely that Canada will, in future TLE negotiations state that its legal obligation is to provide TLE based upon our DOFS population, not the amount based on a formula using the Peguis current population. As a result, if the current Peguis TLE is not approved, the present TLE “deal” would very likely be in serious jeopardy, if not dead. A majority NO vote, a vote against the TLE settlement means no deal, no settlement. It is incorrect to assume that Canada is legally obliged to enter into new negotiations. In addition, even IF Canada agreed to enter into new negotiations with Peguis on TLE, Canada’s land offer would be 9.637 acres calculated based on the DOFS for Peguis. On the other hand, under the proposed settlement Peguis has negotiated an additional 166,794 acres of Reserve.
The majority of the Members on the List of Eligible Voters (everyone 18 years of age and older on the Peguis Membership List) must vote on or before August 29th AND of that number the majority must vote “YES” in favour of the settlement. If so, the TLE settlement agreement will be accepted by the First Nation and Council will be authorized and directed to sign the final agreement.
If the majority of Peguis Members on the List of Eligible Voters cast votes and of that number the majority vote “NO”, a vote against settlement of TLE, the settlement agreement is rejected.
No further vote on the proposed settlement recommended to the Members for acceptance by Council may be called by Peguis or the Minister.
For a valid first vote, at least 50% plus one of the number of eligible voters must vote. For example, if there are say 3,200 names on the List of Eligible Voters as of August 29th (the Voting Day), at least 1,601 of them must vote. If 1,600 or less actually vote, the Minister must call a second vote within 6 months.
No. The time period for the present community approval process is fixed in the Schedule A to the TLE settlement agreement. The Voting Day and polls are fixed in the Council’s Notice of Vote.
Peguis has been aware of its outstanding TLE for over a century. Various Councils have fought for recognition of the Peguis claim for years, in particular since the first submission was made in 1978 (28 years ago). The terms of the TLE settlement have been worked out with Canada over the 8 years since the claim was accepted for negotiation in 1998. A detailed Newsletter was issued at least yearly to provide information about the terms of settlement. A detailed information display on the TLE (and Surrender) claim has also been set up at the Administration offices on several occasions.
All the settlement information was explained in 2 detailed videos, on our First Nation website (www.peguis.ca), in area newspapers, press releases and at various community meetings over the last eight years. The key terms of settlement have been publicly available in detail since at least 2004 -for more than 2 years, as we finalized the legal terms of the proposed settlement agreement, most of which legal terms dealt with implementation process. Each newsletter and the website have always included a section for questions from the membership.
The community approval process in most claim settlements is actually in the range of 42 days similar to an election process. The Peguis information sharing process began June 14th with the Council’s Resolution requesting Indian Affairs to post the Notice of Vote -a time period of some 75 days. During this period, Council is chairing information sessions at each of Winnipeg, Selkirk and Brandon with two sessions at Peguis, after which Members may vote at an advance poll if they wish. Accordingly, the Peguis process is not being “rushed”; in fact it has been ongoing for quite some time. The process will have been completed over a nearly 3 month period after Council requested Indian Affairs post the Notice of Vote.
their community. Some Members living off Reserve do not want to use the mail-in ballot sent to them. For whatever reason, experience in claim settlements has shown that Members want to have the option of voting after the community information sessions. Members do not need to vote at these sessions, it is their choice to vote at the Advance Poll if they want. Otherwise, Members must complete and send in their mail-in ballot to vote or vote at Peguis on August 21st or 29th, the last day of voting.
Third Party Supervision: Upon the request of Council, the Regional Director General of Manitoba appointed an independent contractor, Mr. Bob Norton (a former Inspector with the RCMP), to oversee the community vote on TLE.
Security of Ballot Boxes: Mail in ballots are sent directly to Indian Affairs, received by Mr. Norton and placed in a secure office and cabinet with restricted access until the Voting Day at which time they are carried to the poll by Mr. Norton and opened publicly.
Voting Process: Members voting in person may vote at any Advance Poll or on the Voting Day (August 29th at Peguis IR 1B). Voting is conducted by the Indian Affairs team and individual Members entitled to vote must do so by secret ballot in a private voting booth.
Privacy of Voting: The independent third party supervisor of the TLE will ensure the privacy of voters in the voting process whether voting is in person at a poll or by mail in ballot.
No. Under the Trust Agreement, Section 8.2 Specific Guidelines for Application of Trust Property, subsection (e) states that “no Trust Property shall be applied or distributed by the Trustees or, if received by the Beneficiary, used by the Beneficiary, directly or indirectly, to pay the debt or operational deficit of Peguis or to make any per capita distribution to the Members of Peguis.”
The general plan is to use the income from the Fund for Community Purposes. The Trust provides that at least $2.5 million of the $5 million initially deposited into the Fund must be kept in the Trust account at all times. The purposes for which the Fund may be used are set out in Article 8.2(b) (education, culture, recreation, business, Treaty rights protection, etc.).
The five Community Fund Trustees elected by the Peguis membership are responsible for identifying community projects to be funded from the investment income from the $5,000,000.00 held in the Peguis Trust. This modest income will vary year to year based on investment returns.
The Community Fund Trustees are independent of Council, accountable to the Peguis membership. They have the authority to develop and approve projects up to $50,000.00. They may only recommend (not approve) projects costing more than $50,000.00 and up to $150,000.00 to Council for approval. Projects over $150,000.00 must be approved by the Members. These levels of authority were determined by Council.
Council considered this approach. It certainly could have addressed a lot of the concerns being voiced by the Members at information meetings. However, Peguis is in the midst of a legal dispute over its 2005 elections and struggling with governance and Membership Code issues at the same time as it must consider its proposed TLE settlement. The TLE settlement is a solid, comprehensive settlement, a historic opportunity to settle a long-standing right for more Treaty land. Completing at the same time, the task required to elect Trustees, including the determining of qualification criteria, getting applications, doing nominations and conducting an election of Trustees with up to 30 candidates (i.e. up to 3 persons for each Trustee) would have been an overwhelming task.
The alternative was to use the existing Council as the “initial Trustees” to largely hold the Trust funds under independent professional management until the Members could complete the separate process explained in the above paragraph -a new process for Peguis -to elect good, qualified Trustees. The election of replacement Trustees must occur “as soon as reasonably possible” after acceptance of the TLE settlement and establishment of the Trust.
No. Except for proper travel expenses (if any) paid as Initial Trustees to attend Trustee meetings and any Trustee compensation approved by the Members for acting as Initial Trustees, no member of Chief and Council is entitled to any form of payment from the Peguis Trust funds. In addition, the financial authority of the Initial Trustees is limited by Subparagraph 8.3(a) (vi) of the Trust agreement and other terms so that the Initial Trustees can only disburse funds for land purchase/costs and administration. Also, many terms of the Trust agreement deal with conflict of interest issues so that no member of Chief and Council may receive any benefit from the Trust different from any other Member of Peguis. See above Questions 10, 11 and 20.
Yes. A Trustee must act properly in the best interest of the Trust beneficiary at all times. A Trustee is held to the highest standard of conduct, of utmost good faith known in law, a standard which is enforced by the Courts. If a Trustee does not act honestly, in good faith and exercise the standard of care which may be expected of a prudent Trustee, a Trustee will be in breach of his or her legal duty and obligations under the Trust agreement. In that case, the Trustee can incur criminal as well as civil liability for a breach of trust. Personal liability is joint and several for Trustees.
Yes. Peguis is the sole beneficiary of the Trust. The Members constitute and direct the First Nation and elect the Council. While the Council is responsible for the administration of the internal affairs of Peguis, the members of Council acting as the Initial Trustees have a personal as well as collective obligation to account for their actions to the Members
The Trust agreement provides for accountability of decision making and reporting:
a. the Trustees are each legally liable if they fail to act honestly, in good faith with a view to the best interests of Peguis at all times and must exercise the care, diligence and skill of an ordinary, prudent person in managing the Trust (Section 10.l(c);
b. the Members may require the Trustees to be bonded (Section 10.3);
c. the Trustees must maintain written record of all decisions and make them available to Council AND to Members upon written request (Section 11.1);
d. the Financial Trustees must maintain adequate records of all transactions affecting the Trust property (Subsection 11.2(a));
e. the Financial Trustees must complete an annual audit per Generally Accepted Accounting Principles each year and provide a copy to Council and to any Member upon request without charge (Subsections 11.2(iii) and (iv));
f. the Financial Trustees must take corrective action if the audit is not unqualified (Section 11.2(b));
g. the audit must include a written report in enough detail to allow Members to see that expenditures are those approved under the Trust agreement (e.g. for education, etc.)
h. a similar separate written report must review the Trust investments (Section 11.2(d));
i. the Council must call an annual meeting for the Trustees to present the above audits/reports to the Members (Sections 11.2(e) and (f));
the Community Trustees must provide similar detailed written reports of their activities and expenditures for Community Purposes along with copies to Council and Members as requested (Subsection 11.3(a)); and the Community Trustees must call an annual meeting for the Trustees to present the above audits/reports to the Members (Sections ll.3(b)).
This is an extensive level of accountability enforceable by Peguis or its Members which will ensure full accountability of the Trust.
Council cannot unilaterally remove any Trustee under the terms of the Trust agreement. See the chart on page 20 which illustrates the control the Members of Peguis exercise over the Trustees qualifications, nomination and election:
An Advance Ruling is the most secure form of confirmation that the Trust income will be permanently tax exempt available in Canadian law, but for a Court judgment. The Ruling obtained is based on Section 149(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Under that Section, Canada has agreed that Peguis is “a public body performing the function of government in Canada” and therefore exempt from taxation. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has agreed to be bound by its Rulings. Except in cases where there has been a material misstatement of the facts upon which the Ruling was based, the CRA has never reversed a Ruling issued.
Any Peguis Member who is 18 years of age and older as of August 29, 2006, whose name is on the Membership List or who has submitted an application for Membership and that ;application has been approved is entitled to vote. These persons constitute the “List of Eligible Voters” as defined in Schedule A of the TLE agreernent.
This has been a big question causing much confusion. In 1985, Canada amended the Indian Act. In addition to allowing the registration of many persons who were not entitled to Indi1rn status before that date, the Act SPLIT the right to registration and the right to membership. The Act provided that any First Nation that adopted a Membership Code on or before the end of June 1987, could assume control over admissions to membership. After a vote of the Members, Peguis adopted a Code and gave notice of its assumption of control over the admission of members to INAC effective June 26, 1987.
Unfortunately, many people attending meetings are not and have never been admitted to membership in the Peguis First Nation. There are two basic categories for admission under the Peguis Membership Code:
a) a registered Indian born of 2 parents who were both on the original Membership List pre-1985 who has a right to have his/her name entered on the Membership List; and
b) any other registered Indian who must apply for admission.
Many people at community meetings have been registered as Indians by INAC with a Peguis Indian Registry Number (the Peguis Band Number used in the Indian Registry is 269), but have never applied to have their name put on the Membership List. For several years now, at least since 2004, Council has advised as many people as it could they should verify whether or not they are on the Membership List. A 269 Indian Registry number does not mean the person is a Member of Peguis.
During the present review, no applicant has been refused admission to membership. If a person is refused admission, an appeal or “review” of the decision may be requested within 21 days of the date that the letter of refusal/denial is sent to the applicant. See Clauses 16, 17 and 17.1 of the Peguis Membership Code.
Peguis has always considered internal governance, including the determination of membership, to be matters of the internal affairs and authority of the First Nation. As noted above in Question 41, Indian status and membership were split in 1985, at which time Canada “gave” First Nations the right to determine membership under the Indian Act amendments passed that year. This is a matter raised in the 2005 Peguis election appeal / judicial review before the Manitoba Courts and we must await the outcome of that review.
The Code states that it can be amended upon 15 days notice to the Peguis membership. However, before the Code is amended, the Members will need to see and discuss the amendments and reasons for the amendments. As a result, it will likely take at least several months to finalize the proposed amendments and conduct a vote of the membership. A process to review and update the Peguis Membership Code is a separate governance process to be completed by Peguis in consultation with its Members in the future. A vote of the Members at a general meeting called for that purpose is required to change the Code in any manner.
No. No member of Chief and Council has received nor will receive any form of payment from the TLE settlement.
The settlement does not deal with any individual claims of Peguis members at all. It deals only with the right of Peguis First Nation to receive additional TLE under Treaty 1 -in this case up to 166,794 acres of additional land, 2/3rd of which Peguis has chosen to buy from land in Manitoba. All of the cash compensation payable to the Peguis Trust after settlement is to be used to buy land ($51.4 million) and implement the settlement, except for the $5 million in Community Purpose funding which is to be used for general community purposes.
Canada recognizes that First Nations cannot afford to negotiate complicated land claim settlements which take many years to negotiate. After a claim is accepted for negotiation, Canada provides the First Nation with funding to pay its own lawyers, technical advisors, research specialists, study costs, required meeting/travel costs and for related administration.
The TLE and Surrender claim were negotiated at the same time. Peguis agreed with Canada that $1,777,785.00 was spent on TLE negotiating costs of the loans provided. Canada added this amount to the overall settlement amount and will be “repaid” the full agreed amount of TLE negotiating costs/loans upon settlement. No cheque is actually provided to Peguis, this is a “paper transaction”, the cancellation of the Promissory Notes signed by Peguis.
Peguis makes that decision. If the land is to be set apart as Reserve, the Council must send a Resolution to Indian Affairs requesting that it be set apart as Reserve. Whether Council will request that the land be set apart as Reserve under the settlement agreement may depend on its intended use and required financing.
Peguis has the Treaty right to select unoccupied Crown land in its Treaty area for Reserve. During the negotiations, Peguis argued that most of the good quality Crown land around Peguis IR 1B and the remaining Reserves at St. Peters was sold, owned by private owners and therefore, it could not select all of its TLE from Crown land.
Peguis negotiated the right to purchase about 2/3 of its TLE (111,756 acres initially) from willing sellers of private land. This is a major opportunity for Peguis. It can buy private land of any size in any location in Manitoba for whatever purposes it chooses (e.g. residential, commercial, agricultural, cultural, etc.)
Canada agreed to provide Peguis with land purchase funding of$51,400,000.00 plus funding to buy the land and ensure Reserve creation over the next 25 years.
considered for sale or other disposition with a 25 miles radius of any First Nation owed TLE. Peguis has “expressed an interest” in several parcels of land identified by Manitoba around the former St. Peters Reserve (small parcels, amounting to only a few hundred acres of land). In addition, Members identified land of interest around High Rock Lake and north of Peguis IR 1C which Manitoba has “on hold” for possible selection by Peguis after settlement.
The only formal selection of land for Reserve is actually land which originally formed part of the St. Peters Reserve. Subject to the requirements of the settlement agreement, all of that land may become Reserve for Peguis in the near future.
Over the first year or two, Peguis will have to hire and train staff in land purchase, Reserve creation and monitoring, complete a planning/land selection study to determine the land needs/preferences of the membership and establish operational committees to deal with Crown land selection and land purchases to assist Council and the staff. See the chart on page 9 which illustrates the initial structure for this process including the relationship with the Peguis Trust.
During this period, investment income will accumulate on the settlement funds held in Trust that will be used for First Nation administration costs and initial land purchase/costs. We hope to avoid use of the Trust capital as much as possible, instead relying on the investment income to fund implementation costs.
The Treaty Commissioners orally assured Treaty 1 First Nations land would be provided for future generations, the exchange being set out in the exceptions to the Release. However, Peguis will have to establish that its alleged right to additional land for growth in its population is an existing Treaty right as Canada disagrees with the legal validity of this right at this point in time. Regardless, to legally preserve the right of Peguis to assert this claim, the Release is expressly limited by Subparagraph 23.02(a) (ii) of the TLE settlement agreement which says the Release does not extend to “additional land based upon a growth of population of Peguis”. At some future date, Treaty 1 First Nations may have to sue Canada in court to determine the legal validity of this alleged right under Treaty 1.
Peguis can buy land for Reserve anywhere in Manitoba, including municipal and urban areas. In urban areas, most land will require some municipal services, such as water, sewer, and fire or police protection. Where services are required, Peguis will negotiate contracts for needed services as the Reserve would not be subject to real property taxation by the municipality.
Service costs may be paid from income generated, lease of the land or Indian Affairs contributions depending on the land use. Peguis may apply for program and operational funding like all other First Nations despite its settlement per Section 34.01 of the Agreement.
Peguis itself must determine what type of land it needs for residential, economic development, agriculture, recreation, cultural purposes and where those needs may be met. Peguis has received and will receive funding to complete a Land Selection Study under the settlement. The Study to be done after settlement will involve Members in this type of future planning.
In addition, per the Chart inserted in Question 16, it is intended that Council will be advised by two Committees -one on private land purchase decisions and another on Crown land selections. Both Committees will have Member involvement.
Firstly, and most importantly, you benefit as a member of Peguis as a First Nation. Peguis has been owed more land for Reserve under Treaty 1 for more than a century. Only by voting can you ensure that Peguis finally resolves its long outstanding claim to additional land. Each of us owe that duty to our First Nation – to consider the settlement and vote. Council strongly believes we must act now to settle this historic claim.
This settlement will also provide immediate benefits for our First Nation. We will be able to select good Crown land and buy private land to meet the immediate and future needs of our large population. We are the largest First Nation in Manitoba and growing rapidly. Whether we get land for housing, agriculture, ranching, cultural purposes, recreation or other uses, Peguis now gets to make those decisions, for itself, for its future.
Finally, although TLE is about getting the Treaty land due to us, we also have a $5 million Community Fund that we expect to use for focused, modest projects and needs for both on and off reserve Members. Individual members will benefit from such projects, for example, modest education assistance, languages training or housing support.
No. The settlement Release only deals with the written term of Treaty 1 that provides for an amount of Reserve land (Treaty Land Entitlement). Also note that under the Treaty Entitlement Agreement, Section 35.11 No Effect on Existing Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, it is confirmed that the TLE Agreement is not intended to abrogate or derogate from any other existing aboriginal or Treaty right of Peguis or any Member.
The answer to both questions is YES. See Section 17.05 of the TLE settlement agreement that pertains to the Council and Article 13 of the Trust Agreement which pertains to the Trustees (including the Initial Trustees). Any interest in a Trust matter must be disclosed, after which it must be determined whether the interest is “material” If the Trustee has a material interest, the Trustee may not participate in the decision in the matter or even be present at the meeting when the decision is made, although the Trustees may require attendance to answer appropriate questions related to their decision. Failure to disclose any interest found to be material to the decision will attract severe penalties, including termination as a Trustee.
The Peguis Trust is intended to be of virtually permanent, or more accurately, indefinite duration to provide for settlement implementation, land purchase and Reserve creation over the next 25 years or more. On the other hand, the Community Fund should be able to exist “forever”, there being a legal restriction on the expenditure of more than half of this Fund. Regardless, under Trust law, there must be a means of termination of the Trust. To ensure the Peguis Trust is available to meet the above objectives, the “standard” for termination of the Trust by the Peguis membership was set very high -the Trust may not be terminated unless and until the standard is reached and the procedure set out met.
The Trust may be terminated ONLY after Peguis has obtained 90% of its TLE as Reserve (150,115 of 166,794 acres) AND if 90% of the Peguis Members vote to terminate, of which 75% must vote in favour of termination. If these standards are met, Peguis must then call another vote to determine how the funds are to be applied. In this second vote, 90% of the Peguis Members must vote and 75% must be in favour of the distribution.
The primary role of the Initial Trustees is to accept the payment of the Settlement amount from Canada into the Peguis Trust account and select the professional investment manager to handle the Trust funds.
Under the Trust Agreement, Section 8.3 – Provisions Governing the Application of the Trust Property, subsection (a) (vi) states “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the Initial Trustees shall not at any time during the period they hold office pay or apply any of the Trust Property to or for the benefit of the Beneficiary in accordance with a Funding Direction unless such Funding Direction relates only to Expenditures Beneficial to the Beneficiary for Implementation Purposes under Paragraph 8.2(a).”
What this means is that the financial authority of the Initial Trustees is limited to Implementation of the Agreement, specifically TLE related land purchase, related costs and administration. The Initial Trustees may not use any Trust money for Community Purposes or any other reason.
Under the Trust Agreement, the Trustee Nominating Committee ( made up of seven Members, three of which must live off Reserve) must draft qualification criteria for the consideration and approval of the Members of Peguis. Qualifications will likely include a certain minimum education and experience for each type of Trustee. There are 2 types of Trustees – one dealing with community projects and the other dealing with the financial management of the Trust funds – with very different demands.
Note the proposed criteria must be suitable and reasonable, set out in writing, posted at the Band offices, given to any Member upon request and approved by the Members before applications are requested from the Peguis Membership. See Section 9.5 of the Trust agreement.
The Trust agreement states that the TNC must recommend for election those Members who are “most qualified” for nomination from among the applications received. In addition the TNC must provide written summary reasons for each nomination and the qualifications of each nominee. This open accountability sets high standards for the review process. Any shortcoming would be reviewable by the Peguis Membership. The most important issue is that well qualified Members of Peguis interested in the TLE settlement should be encouraged to apply for election as Trustees.
Two of the seven Financial Trustees are considered independent Trustees. Although they may be Peguis Members, they must each be a professional governed by a professional body, such as a lawyer, chartered accountant, engineer, etc. In doing so, the professional should have strong, extensive experience and skill in administration and contribute significantly to the ongoing organization of the Trust, integrity of decision making and general accountability of the Trust to Peguis and its Members.
Independent professionals are subject to high standards of ethics and conduct set by their profession. Failure to adhere to those standards of conduct and accountability will attract personal and professional sanctions. Therefore, Peguis benefits greatly from the participation of independent professionals in the role of Trustees for Peguis. One of the independent Trustees may be an official of a professional Trust company if preferred as well.
Peguis is one First Nation comprised of all of its Members wherever we live. The primary purpose of the TLE settlement and Trust is to ensure that Peguis secures the additional land due to it under Treaty.
The Trust agreement formally provides for a certain representation from both on and off Reserve residents in the management of Peguis internal affairs for the first time in its history. Three of the 7 Trustee Nominating Committee members, at least 1 and up to 3 of the 7 Financial Trustees and at least 1 and up to 2 of the 5 Community Fund Trustees must live off Reserve. This is an unprecedented level of formal involvement of off Reserve Members in Peguis affairs which should be acknowledged.
Finally, although the advance tax ruling is based on the Income Tax Act, both Sections 87, 89 and 90 of the Indian Act have potential application. If so, the Trust must be legally resident on Reserve. Residency of a Trust is determined by the residency of the Trustees. Therefore, the majority of the Trustees must be resident on Reserve to claim the tax and legal process exemptions found in the Indian Act.
Only persons who have a legal interest in a Peguis Treaty matter, Peguis common assets (e.g. Reserve land or money) may vote. For the reasons explained in the above question, a person registered with a 269 number is not a member of Peguis, unless their name is on the Peguis Membership List.
Under the Peguis Membership Code, certain information is required for all persons seeking admission to the membership. The Peguis Membership Committee must verify that information and confirm that the person registered with a 269 number (historical relationship with Peguis) should be admitted to membership and have his or her name placed on the Membership List by Council.
The TLE settlement agreement sets out the procedure and requirements for community approval. As mentioned in the answer to Questions 40 and 42, only persons on the Peguis Membership List are legally recognized as members of Peguis First Nation for the purposes of voting on the TLE settlement and have the legal right to vote on TLE, a Treaty related matter. Consequently, confirming the List of Eligible Voters is an essential step leading up to the TLE vote.
No names were taken off or “removed from” the Membership List. The Membership List should not be confused with the List of Eligible Voters. As explained above in the answer to Question #45, Peguis is working, in accordance with the terms of the TLE Settlement Agreement, to confirm the list of Members eligible to vote on the TLE settlement. The Peguis administration and Membership Committee are working together to review applications for admission to membership and the names of persons admitted will be added to the List of Eligible Voters during the time period leading up to Voting Day.
Since at least August 2004, Peguis has been trying to contact Members and applicants asking them to confirm their membership. Many persons now complaining that they are not members confirmed they in fact received the Newsletters sent out informing them of this issue.
This is an error of course. Members, in particular Members living off Reserve, rarely tell the First Nation administration where they live or of any changes in address, much less tell the First Nation of death in their family. A copy of the Death Certificate, provided by the Funeral Home, is required to be given by the family of the deceased to the Membership Clerk before a name is removed from the Membership List. It is very difficult, if not impossible to keep the Membership List current for these reasons. Council apologizes for any oversights if the membership staff have been informed of the death of a member. However, please call or send a fax/email if you know of any deceased Member still on the List of Eligible Voters or Membership List.
A membership update will now be a regular process. Confirmation of the List of Eligible Voters is a priority, additions being allowed up to and including August 29th, the Voting Day.. The Committee is meeting every week in August. Council considers Committee recommendations within a few days of each meeting.