Jordan’s Principle update given at ONWAA spring assembly
By Rick Garrick
Native welfare administrators were updated on Jordan’s Principle by a First Nations Child and Family Caring Society lawyer at the Ontario Native Welfare Administrators Association’s Spring Assembly.
“It was very uplifting to hear the whole story that led into the Jordan’s Principle, the long court case that took many years at great cost,” says Denise Bouchard, social services administrator for the Red Rock Indian Band citizen and secretary of the ONWAA board. “We are pleased that it was a resounding affirmation for our children.”
Sarah Clarke, one of the legal counsel for the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, spoke about Jordan’s Principle during her keynote address on the first day of ONWAA’s Spring Assembly, held May 10-12 at the Valhalla Inn in Thunder Bay.
“She spoke at great length about the money that was spent by the federal government to fight this court case,” Bouchard says.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found, on Jan. 26, that the previous federal government’s approach regarding Jordan’s Principle since it was unanimously endorsed by the House of Commons in 2007 was discriminatory, contrary to section 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal also ordered the current federal government on April 26 to immediately apply Jordan’s Principle to all jurisdictional disputes involving all First Nations children, including those between federal departments.
The federal government responded on May 10 that Jordan’s Principle must now include jurisdictional disputes between federal government departments, not just disputes between federal and provincial governments; and Jordan’s Principle must no longer be limited to those First Nations children on reserve who have multiple disabilities requiring multiple service providers.
The federal government also stated that appropriate services for any Jordan’s Principle case will not be delayed due to case conferencing or policy review; that the federal government has committed to providing necessary resources to implement Jordan’s Principle; and Health Canada and Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada have written jointly to the provinces and territories to initiate jurisdictional discussions related to Jordan’s Principle.
“Although I can’t give exact numbers as to how many children Jordan’s Principle will serve, I do know it is a positive outcome for our First Nation to ensuring our children and youth will receive the same services as they would off reserve,” Bouchard says. “Our only concern now is just to make sure that all of our children, whether they are status or non-status, that they receive equitable services.”
About 200 Native welfare administrators and staff participated in the Spring Assembly, which included training and information sessions on a variety of topics, including Ministry of Community and Social Services directives, federal government social program changes and the Ontario Electricity Support Program.
“We have seven intake workers going into communities currently to sign people up for the Ontario Electricity Support Program,” says Jessica Nadjiwon-Smith, ONWAA’s executive director. “Depending on your income and your household size, (savings) could be up to $75 off your hydro bill per month. For you to sign up, we need the hydro bill, we need all the Social Insurance Numbers (of people) in the house and we need verification of income.”
The OESP provides a monthly credit directly to the hydro bill of low-income residents across Ontario, with on and off-reserve First Nations and Metis people qualifying for a higher level of assistance.
“There are intake agencies all over the province,” Nadjiwon-Smith says. “We are just one of many. If you go on the (www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/ontario-electricity-support-program/) website, it will tell you all of the intake agencies in your local area.”
Jordan’s Principle was developed after Jordan River Anderson, a First Nations child from northern Manitoba with multiple disabilities, died in hospital after waiting for more than two years to go home because government officials could not agree who should pay for his at-home care.