Jordan's Principle

Last updated
Jordan's Principle Logo Jordan's Principle Logo.png
Jordan's Principle Logo

Jordan's Principle is a child-first and needs-based principle used in public policy and administration in Canada to ensure that First Nations children living on and off reserve have equitable access to all government funded public services. It holds that First Nations children should not be denied access to public services while governments fight over who should pay. In order to ensure substantive equality, this can also include services that are not ordinarily available to other children. According to the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada, the organization that hosts the Jordan's Principle campaign:

Contents

Jordan's Principle ensures that First Nations children can access all public services when they need them. Services need to be culturally-based and take into full account the historical disadvantage linked to colonization that many First Nations children live with. The government of first contact pays for the service and resolves jurisdictional/payment disputes later. [1]

Jordan's Principle is reflective of the non-discrimination provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Canadian domestic law that does not allow differential treatment on the basis of race or ethnic origin.

History

Jordan's Principle was established by First Nations in response to the death of five-year-old Jordan River Anderson, a child from Norway House Cree Nation who suffered from Carey Fineman Ziter syndrome, a rare muscular disorder that required years of medical treatment in a Winnipeg hospital. After spending the first two years of his life in a hospital, doctors cleared Jordan to live in a family home near the hospital in Winnipeg. However, the federal and provincial governments could not resolve who was financially responsible for the necessary home care. For over two years, the Government of Canada and Manitoba provincial government continued to argue while Jordan remained in the hospital. In 2005, at the age of five, Jordan died in the hospital; he never had the opportunity to live in a family home. [2]

In 2005, the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society released the Wen:De: We are Coming to the Light of Day report. Drawing on a team of over twenty researchers, the report provides a holistic and detailed review of the Government of Canada's First Nations child and family services policy and sets out recommendations for improvement. The research found that jurisdictional disputes continue to have significant impacts on the lived experiences of First Nations children, particularly those with disabilities. Among the policy recommendations, the report recommended that Jordan's Principle be adopted by the Government of Canada and provincial/territorial governments. [3]

Private Members Motion 296 in support of Jordan's principle passed in the House of Commons of Canada on December 12, 2007. [4]

In February 2015, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) released the Jordan's Principle Working Group report named Without denial, delay or disruption: Ensuring First Nations children's access to equitable services through Jordan's Principle, highlighting several gaps in Jordan's Principle implementation. [5]

In June 2015, the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission made Jordan's Principle the third of its 94 Calls to Action for governments in Canada, stating, "We call upon all levels of government to fully implement Jordan's Principle." [6]

In November 2018, the Alberta provincial government signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on Jordan's Principle with the First Nations Health Consortium and the federal government. [7]

In June 2019, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Calls for Justice 12.10 calls for the federal and provincial/territorial governments to immediately implement Jordan's Principle for all First Nations (Status and non-Status) children. [8]

Canadian human rights case

In January 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, a Canadian legal institution with a mandate to adjudicate cases where there has been an alleged breach of the Canadian Human Rights Act , found that the Government of Canada's improper implementation of Jordan's Principle resulted in discrimination against First Nations children and youth on the basis of race and national ethnic origin and ordered the Government of Canada to "cease applying its narrow definition of Jordan's Principle and to take measures to immediately implement the full meaning and scope of Jordan's Principle." [9]

Since January 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has issued several remedial non-compliance orders against Canada for failing to abide by the original decision and implement the proper definition of Jordan's Principle. [10] [11] In September 2016, the Tribunal specified that Jordan's Principle applies to all First Nations children, not only those resident on reserve nor only those with "disabilities and those who present with a discrete, short-term issue." [12] Despite this, two 2017 rulings (2017 CHRT 14 and 2017 CHRT 35 (amendment)) asserted Canada continued to repeat "its pattern of conduct and narrow focus with respect to Jordan's Principle" and provided guidelines for implementation. [13] Canada was ordered to:

Jordan's Principle Information Poster June 29, 2018 Jordan's Principle Information Poster June 29, 2018 Updated.png
Jordan's Principle Information Poster June 29, 2018

The Tribunal also ordered Canada to follow specific timeframes when making a determination on a request:

In February 2019, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued an interim ruling (2019 CHRT 7) on the definition of a "First Nations child" for the purposes of Jordan's Principle. Pending a full hearing on the matter, the Tribunal ordered Canada to extend Jordan's Principle to First Nations children without Indian Act status who live off-reserve but who are recognized by their Nation, and who have urgent and/or life-threatening needs. [15]

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued an order on compensation in 2019 (2019 CHRT 39). The Tribunal ruled that First Nations children and their families would receive the maximum compensation through the Canadian Human Rights Act ($40,000) for Canada's "wilful and reckless" discrimination, referring to it as a worst-case scenario under the Act. [16] Canada was ordered to compensate certain First Nations children, and their parents or grandparents, who were affected by the discriminatory treatment in child welfare services since January 1, 2006 or were denied or experienced delays in services covered under Jordan's Principle since November 2, 2017. [17]

The Government of Canada submitted a judicial review of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal compensation order to the Federal Court in October 2019. Canada sought an order to quash all financial compensation and a motion to stay the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal proceedings until the Federal Court makes a decision on the judicial review. Hearings were held in November 2019 and Canada's stay motion was denied soon after. [18]

Hearings on the definition of a First Nations child for Jordan's Principle were held March 27–28, 2019, and a ruling (2020 CHRT 20) was issued in July 2020. Canada was ordered to immediately recognize First Nations children who will become eligible for Indian Act status under S-3 implementation.The Tribunal found two further categories of First Nations children who would become eligible for Jordan's Principle following a further order: 1. First Nations children without Indian Act status who are recognized by their respective First Nations; and 2. First Nations children who do not have Indian Act status and who are not eligible for Indian Act status, but have a parent/guardian with, or who is eligible for, Indian Act status. The Tribunal ordered the parties to consult on a mechanism to identify these two categories. The parties include the Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada (the complainants), the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the Attorney General of Canada. [19]

In November 2020, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued an order (2020 CHRT 36) confirming four categories of eligibility for Jordan's Principle submitted by the parties, in keeping with the direction in 2020 CHRT 20. These categories ensure that First Nations children living off-reserve without Indian Act status but who are recognized by their Nations can access Jordan's Principle. First Nations children meeting any one of the following criteria are eligible for consideration under Jordan's Principle:

The Tribunal also approved the default process submitted by the parties for recognizing a child for the purposes of Jordan's Principle and the parameters for funding First Nations for expenses incurred in recognition functions. The Tribunal made clear that recognition by a First Nation is for the purposes of Jordan's Principle only. It asserted further that Jordan's Principle is not a fixed budget program, but a legal obligation of the Government of Canada, meaning funding expands with the number of eligible children. [21]

On December 22, 2020, Canada filed for judicial review of 2020 CHRT 20 and 2020 CHRT 36. [22] Importantly, both 2020 CHRT 20 and 2020 CHRT 36 remain in place while the judicial review is underway.

Alanis Obomsawin's 2016 documentary film We Can't Make the Same Mistake Twice argues that the federal government has fought applying Jordan's Principle to such a degree that an $11-million fund set aside to cover its costs was never used. [23] Anderson was also the subject of Obomsawin's 2019 film Jordan River Anderson, the Messenger . [24]

Jurisdictional disputes

In Canada, there is a lack of clarity between the federal and provincial/territorial governments around who should pay for government services for First Nations children even when the service is normally available to other children. Too often the practice is for the governments to deny or delay the child's receipt of services pending resolution of the payment dispute. Under Jordan's Principle, where a jurisdictional dispute arises between two government parties (provincial/territorial or federal) or between two departments or ministries of the same government, regarding payment for services for a First Nations child, the government or ministry/department of first contact must pay for the services without delay or disruption. The paying government party can refer the matter to jurisdictional dispute mechanisms after the service or support has been provided. [25] A jurisdictional dispute is not always necessary for the application of Jordan's Principle. [26]

Related Research Articles

The minister of Crown–Indigenous relations is a minister of the Crown in the Canadian Cabinet, one of two ministers who administer Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC), the department of the Government of Canada which is responsible for administering the Indian Act and other legislation dealing with "Indians and lands reserved for the Indians" under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The minister is also more broadly responsible for overall relations between the federal government and First Nations, Métis, and Inuit.

<i>Indian Act</i> 1876 Canadian act of Parliament

The Indian Act is a Canadian Act of Parliament that concerns registered Indians, their bands, and the system of Indian reserves. First passed in 1876 and still in force with amendments, it is the primary document that defines how the Government of Canada interacts with the 614 First Nation bands in Canada and their members. Throughout its long history, the act has been a subject of controversy and has been interpreted in different ways by both Indigenous Canadians and non-Indigenous Canadians. The legislation has been amended many times, including "over five major changes" made in 2002.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nunatsiavut</span> Autonomous area in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada claimed by the Inuit

Nunatsiavut is an autonomous area claimed by the Inuit in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. The settlement area includes territory in Labrador extending to the Quebec border. In 2002, the Labrador Inuit Association submitted a proposal for limited autonomy to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The constitution was ratified on December 1, 2005, at which time the Labrador Inuit Association ceased to exist, and the new Government of Nunatsiavut was established, initially being responsible for health, education and cultural affairs. It is also responsible for setting and conducting elections, the first of which was executed in October 2006. An election for the ordinary members of the Nunatsiavut Assembly was held on May 4, 2010. Its incumbent president is Johannes Lampe who assumed office in 2016.

Children's rights or the rights of children are a subset of human rights with particular attention to the rights of special protection and care afforded to minors. The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) defines a child as "any human being below the age of eighteen years, unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." Children's rights includes their right to association with both parents, human identity as well as the basic needs for physical protection, food, universal state-paid education, health care, and criminal laws appropriate for the age and development of the child, equal protection of the child's civil rights, and freedom from discrimination on the basis of the child's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, disability, color, ethnicity, or other characteristics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transgender rights in Canada</span> Rights of transgender individuals in Canada

Transgender rights in Canada, including procedures for changing legal gender and protections from discrimination, vary among provinces and territories, due to Canada's nature as a federal state. According to the 2021 Canadian census, 59,460 Canadians identify as transgender. Canada was ranked third in Asher & Lyric's Global Trans Rights Index in 2023.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indigenous police in Canada</span>

Indigenous police services in Canada are police forces under the control of a First Nation or Inuit government.

Child protective services (CPS) is the name of an agency responsible for providing child protection, which includes responding to reports of child abuse or neglect. Some countries and US states use other names, often attempting to reflect more family-centered practices, such as department of children and family services (DCFS). CPS is also sometimes known by the name of department of social services, though these terms more often have a broader meaning.

Richard Warman is an Ottawa-based lawyer who is active in human rights law. Warman worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) from July 2002 until March 2004. He is best known as the primary instigator of actions related to Internet content under Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act against people including white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

The Office of theChildren's Commissioner for England is a non-departmental public body in England responsible for promoting and protecting the rights of children as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as other human rights legislation, such as the Human Rights Act 1998. The Children's Commissioner was established under the Children Act 2004 to "represent the views and interests of children", and the office was further strengthened by the Children and Families Act 2014 providing a legal mandate to promote and protect the rights of children. According to the Commissioner's website, the role's purpose is to facilitate long-term improvements for all children, and in particular for the most vulnerable, and involves “being the eyes and ears of children within the system and the country as a whole", as well as acting with political independence from government, children's agencies and the voluntary and private sectors. The Children's Commissioner also has a duty to speak on behalf of all children in the United Kingdom on non-devolved issues, which include immigration, and youth justice in Wales.

Aboriginal child protection describes services designed specifically for protection of the children of "aboriginal" or indigenous peoples, particularly where they are a minority within a country. This may differ at international, national, legal, cultural, social, professional and program levels from general or mainstream child protection services. Fundamental human rights are a source of many of the differences. Aboriginal child protection may be an integral or a distinct aspect of mainstream services or it may be exercised formally or informally by an aboriginal people itself. There has been controversy about systemic genocide in child protection systems enforced with aboriginal children in post-colonial societies.

Marc Lemire is a Canadian. He works closely with leader Paul Fromm, and is the webmaster of the Hamilton, Ontario-based Freedom-Site which he began in 1996. Formerly of Toronto and now living in Hamilton, Lemire was the last president of the Heritage Front organization from January 1, 2001, until the organization folded around 2005. He was employed as a network analyst in the IT department of the City of Hamilton, Ontario, from around 2005 until 2019, when he agreed to resign.

Weechi-it-te-win Family Services is a family services agency focused on the needs of Anishinaabe families in ten communities in the southern part of the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3 in Canada. It provides bicultural aboriginal and mainstream child protection and prevention services based upon cultural competence. Weechi-it-te-win "is an example of First Nations communities reclaiming jurisdiction for their children and safeguarding a cultural heritage shaken by the impacts of colonization, the legacy of the residential schools and intervention by the mainstream child welfare system." Weechi-te-win is a national child protection agency of the Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty #3. The defining difference between Weechi-it-te-win and mainstream services is its focus on customary care. Its website says: "Weechi-it-te-win was founded as an Indian Alternative and we continue to envision the revitalizing of an Anishinaabe child care system that is rooted in the customs, traditions and values of the Anishinaabe people."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Canada</span>

Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Prior to that time, there were few legal protections for human rights. The protections which did exist focused on specific issues, rather than taking a general approach to human rights.

Reparations are broadly understood as compensation given for an abuse or injury. The colloquial meaning of reparations has changed substantively over the last century. In the early 1900s, reparations were interstate exchanges that were punitive mechanisms determined by treaty and paid by the surrendering side of a conflict, such as the World War I reparations paid by Germany and its allies. Reparations are now understood as not only war damages but also compensation and other measures provided to victims of severe human rights violations by the parties responsible. The right of the victim of an injury to receive reparations and the duty of the part responsible to provide them has been secured by the United Nations.

The Sixties Scoop, also known as The Scoop, was a period in which a series of policies were enacted in Canada that enabled child welfare authorities to take, or "scoop up," Indigenous children from their families and communities for placement in foster homes, from which they would be adopted by white families. Despite its name referencing the 1960s, the Sixties Scoop began in the mid-to-late 1950s and persisted into the 1980s.

Cindy Blackstock is a Canadian Gitxsan activist for child welfare and executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. She is also a professor for the School of Social Work at McGill University.

Indigenous or Aboriginal self-government refers to proposals to give governments representing the Indigenous peoples in Canada greater powers of government. These proposals range from giving Aboriginal governments powers similar to that of local governments in Canada to demands that Indigenous governments be recognized as sovereign, and capable of "nation-to-nation" negotiations as legal equals to the Crown, as well as many other variations.

The "comparator group" is an element that has been used in Canadian jurisprudence to analyze statutory human rights complaints and claims pursuant to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 guarantees equality rights and the right to be free from discrimination on certain enumerated grounds.

<i>Accessible Canada Act</i> Legislation to prohibit disability discrimination

The Accessible Canada Act is a Canada-wide accessibility act that applies to the federal public sector, Crown corporations, and all federally-regulated organizations, building on the Canadian Human Rights Act and focuses on the prohibition of discrimination based on disability.

The federal government of the United States has limited authority to act on education, and education policy serves to support the education systems of state and local governments through funding and regulation of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. The Department of Education serves as the primary government organization responsible for enacting federal education policy in the United States.

References

  1. ↑ "Jordan's Principle: Ensuring First Nations Children Receive the Public Services They Need When They Need Them" (PDF). fncaringsociety.com. First Nations Child & Family Caring Society. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  2. ↑ "Jordan's Principle". fncaringsociety.com. First Nations Child & Family Caring Society. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  3. ↑ "Wen:de: We are Coming to the Light of Day". fncaringsociety.com. First Nations Child & Family Caring Society. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  4. ↑ Crowder, Jean. "Aboriginal Affairs, Private Members' Business". ourcommons.ca. House of Commons. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  5. ↑ Without denial, delay, or disruption: Ensuring First Nations children's access to equitable services through Jordan's Principle (PDF). Ottawa, ON: Assembly of First Nations. 2015. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  6. ↑ "Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action" (PDF). trc.ca. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  7. ↑ "Alberta government signs Jordan's Principle agreement with feds, First Nations group". Global news . November 16, 2018.
  8. ↑ "Reclaiming Power and Place" (PDF). mmiwg-ffada.ca. National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  9. ↑ "First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)". decisions.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca. Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  10. ↑ "Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Non-Compliance Orders". fncaringsociety.com. First Nations Child & Family Caring Society. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  11. ↑ Barrera, Jorge (2019-04-17). "Ottawa fighting First Nations groups over compensation for child welfare discrimination". CBC. Retrieved 2019-06-07.
  12. ↑ First Nations Child & Family Caring Society (September 14, 2016). "2016 CHRT 16" . Retrieved January 28, 2021.
  13. ↑ "First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)". decisions.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca. Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  14. 1 2 "First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)". decisions.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca. Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  15. ↑ "First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)". decisions.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca. Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  16. ↑ "First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)". decisions.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca. Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  17. ↑ "Victory for First Nations Children and Families: Tribunal Orders Compensation (2019 CHRT 39)". fncaringsociety.com. First Nations Child & Family Caring Society. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  18. ↑ Barrera, Jorge (November 29, 2019). "Federal Court denies Ottawa's attempt to pause First Nations child welfare compensation order". CBC. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  19. ↑ First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada. "2020 CHRT 20". I am a Witness.
  20. ↑ First Nations Child & Family Caring Society (January 2021). "Tribunal Rules on Four Categories of Jordan's Principle to Ensure Substantive Equality: 2020 CHRT 36" (PDF). I am a witness. Retrieved January 25, 2021.
  21. ↑ The First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada (January 2021). "Jordan's Principle: Ensuring First Nations Children Receive the Services They Need When They Need Them" (PDF). Jordan's Principle. Retrieved February 1, 2021.
  22. ↑ The Child and Family Caring Society (December 22, 2020). "Notice of Application for Judicial Review". I am a witness. Retrieved January 28, 2021.
  23. ↑ "We Can't Make the Same Mistake Twice exposes Canada's barriers to reconciliation". The Globe and Mail. 2016-10-20. Retrieved 2017-09-18.
  24. ↑ Peter Howell, "Indigenous films highlight Canadian slate at TIFF 2019". Toronto Star , July 31, 2019.
  25. ↑ Blackstock, C. "Jordan's principle: Editorial update". Paediatr Child Health. 13: 589–90. PMC 2603509 . PMID 19436554.
  26. ↑ "First Nations Child & Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada) - Canadian Human Rights Tribunal". decisions.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca. Retrieved 2019-07-02.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.