Canada announces changes to Jordan’s Principle program, narrows range of eligible requests
Canada has recently made significant changes to a program aimed at providing First Nations children with the care and support they need in a timely manner. The alterations include restricting funding approvals under Jordan’s Principle for certain non-essential items such as home renovations, sporting events, international travel, non-medical supports, and school-related requests unless necessary to ensure equality with non-Indigenous children.
The decision to revamp the program comes following concerns raised by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which highlighted instances of misuse. The tribunal expressed worry over requests for non-urgent items like modeling headshots, gaming consoles, bicycles, and even a zip line kit. While acknowledging that some unusual requests may be justified, such as a fridge needed to store medication for a child in Walpole Island, the tribunal emphasized the need to adhere to the original intent of Jordan’s Principle.
Named after Jordan River Anderson, a young boy from Manitoba who tragically passed away while awaiting health supports, Jordan’s Principle was established to address disparities in services for First Nations children. It stemmed from a human rights complaint filed by the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Family and Caring Society in 2007, highlighting the challenges faced by Indigenous children due to jurisdictional disputes between the federal government and provinces.
In response to the growing backlog of requests and concerns over misuse, Indigenous Services Canada announced the program changes after a thorough review of its legal obligations. The department is currently reassessing processes and policies at both regional and national levels to ensure more consistent and transparent guidelines for accessing services through Jordan’s Principle.
Despite the need for stricter guidelines, some critics, including Cindy Blackstock, the head of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, argue that Canada’s approach may perpetuate colonial stereotypes and fail to address the root causes of the backlog. Blackstock has been advocating for evidence-based solutions and challenging Canada to fulfill its legal obligations to address the backlog and establish an independent complaints mechanism.
Regional First Nations organizations have also voiced concerns, with some citing challenges with the current system of paperwork and approval processes. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has criticized the program as unsustainable, while other groups have reported financial strains and delays in accessing funding.
As Canada moves forward with narrowing the scope of requests under Jordan’s Principle, there is a growing need for transparency and accountability to ensure that the program effectively meets the needs of First Nations children. Blackstock emphasizes the importance of clinical justification for these changes and raises concerns about the potential impact on children who may be left without essential services.
In conclusion, while the recent changes to Jordan’s Principle aim to address misuse and streamline the process, there is a need for ongoing collaboration and dialogue to ensure that Indigenous children receive the support they deserve.
