Federal intransigence on Jordan’s Principle typical
This week there were marches across Canada in support of “Jordan’s Principle.”
For the uninitiated, this important principle is a hard fought achievement that was designed to circumvent jurisdictional disputes between governments or departments over providing services for First Nations children.
It gets its name from Jordan River Anderson, a little boy from the Norway House First Nation in northern Manitoba, who was born with a rare muscular disease called Cary Fineman Ziter Syndrome. After the boy spent two years in a Winnipeg hospital undergoing treatment, doctors determined that he was well enough to go home but would require home care.
Neither the federal nor provincial government would agree to pay for the necessary care, so Jordan remained in hospital. He died when he was just five years old, after spending a lifetime in the hospital.
This tragic story is not unique for First Nations people. Too often governments toss the bills from one to another while patients are caught in limbo.
The problem of jurisdiction in Canada is as old as the country. When the Fathers of Confederation met to form the new country, they horse traded to come up with an agreement. Certain areas of jurisdiction went to the provinces and others were retained by the federal government. First Nations were not part of the negotiations, and were assumed to be of no consequence. The chickens are coming home to roost a century and a half later.
Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867 outlines areas of federal jurisdiction while section 92 outlines the provinces’ jurisdiction. For example, marriage is a provincial responsibility while divorce is a federal responsibility.
In any event, Section 91 (24) states: “Indians and lands reserved for Indians” fall under federal jurisdiction. However education, health and social services all fall to the provinces. What has followed has been a decades-long fight, with no clear agreement between the two governments.
The federal government has never really lived up to its legal obligations under the treaties or the BNA Act. After the treaties were signed, the government basically waited for the Indians to die off. We had been decimated by starvation and disease, and were considered a vanishing race.
The government abdicated its responsibility to Indians and turned over their education and social services to the churches. It was a cheap fix, and the churches were only too anxious to Christianize and assimilate any Indians who survived.
When it later became apparent that the churches’ contribution was an abject failure, the federal government tried to dump the responsibility for First Nations people on the provinces. Our people fought back, and resisted the federal drive to promote off-reserve integrated schools and the encroachment of provincial child and welfare agencies.
It created a jurisdictional nightmare, and services were denied First Nations people that would never be denied to others. Rather than deal with the issue, the federal and provincial governments continued to their dispute over jurisdiction. As far as the Department of Indian Affairs was concerned, this played into its hands and made it difficult for First Nations people to fight for treaty and aboriginal rights.
Here is where the short life of Jordan Anderson comes in. While he was lying in a Winnipeg hospital bed, the federal and provincial governments squabbled over who would pay the bill. It was two heartless bureaucracies quarrelling over what, in the grand scheme of things, amounted to nickels and dimes.
Sadly he died before they could come to a settlement. Political organizations picked up the case and developed a policy statement called “Jordan’s Principle.” It states that when there is a jurisdictional dispute between government parties regarding payment of services for a status Indian child, the government or ministry of first contact with the child must pay for the services and then refer the matter to jurisdictional dispute resolving mechanisms.
Jordan’s principle puts the child’s welfare first, and the paper pushers second.
It was only after lobbying and political pressure from the Assembly of First Nations, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the First Nations Child and Caring Society of Canada that the principle received support from the House of Commons. On Dec. 12, 2007, MP Jean Crowder introduced the motion in support of Jordan’s principle. It was duly debated and received all party support.
Implementation of this policy has not been without problems. The federal government has interpreted it narrowly, as applying only in extreme cases. However, the Federal Court of Canada ruled on April 4, 2013, that Jordan’s Principle is binding, and that the federal government needs to reimburse the Pictou Landing First Nation and the mother for costs incurred in the care of a severely disabled youth, Jeremy Meawasige.
Now Ottawa has appealed the ruling, and funding agreements are in limbo.
Aboriginal Affairs has the highest legal bill of any federal department. It is attempting to hold back progress, and the imbroglio created by its unwillingness to accept Jordan’s Principle is just one more example.