From the House of Commons Resolution to Pictou Landing Band Council and Maurina Beadle v. Canada: An Update on the Implementation of Jordan’s Principle

For Jordan, tragic delays in services resulted from a jurisdictional dispute which emerged because provincial and federal government departments disagreed on who should bear financial responsibility for necessary home care services, which were normally available to off-reserve children (Blackstock, Prakash, Loxley, & Wien, 2005). Status First Nations individuals are particularly vulnerable to jurisdictional disputes due to their unique status under Canadian law and policy (Blackstock et al., 2005; Nathanson, 2010). The federal government generally finances provincially/territorially regulated health and social services on-reserve, while provincial/territorial governments have sole responsibility for health and social services to non-Status or off-reserve individuals. There is increasing evidence of factors which could potentially contribute to jurisdictional disputes between governments or government departments over funding of services for children living on-reserve. These factors include: the systematic underfunding of on-reserve services by the federal government (Auditor General of Canada, 2008; McDonald & Ladd, 2000), federally/provincially recognized disparities in the services normally available to children on- and off-reserve (Auditor General of Canada, 2008; Terms of Reference Officials Working Group, 2009), and ambiguities in the delineation of federally and provincially funded on-reserve services (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, 2008). Jordan’s Principle is a child-first principle named in memory of Jordan River Anderson. The goal of Jordan’s Principle is to ensure that Status First Nations children are not subjected to delay, denial, or disruption of needed services due to disputes between governments or government departments. It is intended to ensure equitable treatment of First Nations children, in accordance with Canada’s national and international obligations (First Nations Child and Family Caring Society [the Caring Society], 2011). Jordan’s Principle was unanimously endorsed by the Canadian House of Commons (“Private Member’s Motion M-296”, 2007) and the federal government began implementing a response to Jordan’s Principle in 2008. Federal and provincial efforts to translate this policy endorsement into law are detailed below. This article draws from a comprehensive review of Jordan’s Principle-related government documents, non-governmental agency reports, and academic articles (see Blumenthal & Sinha, 2014) to describe the steps that the federal government has taken to implement an administrative response to Jordan’s Principle, and to outline some of the major limitations in the scope of that response. It also provides an overview of a legal case which centers on Jordan’s Principle and raises troubling questions about the extent to which Canada has implemented Jordan’s Principle (Pictou Landing Band Council and Maurina Beadle v. the Attorney General of Canada[PLBC v. Canada], 2013). The Federal Court decision in this case has been appealed by the federal government, and the goal of this article is to provide readers with the background required to understand the context and importance of the upcoming appeal hearing. Working with advocates from across the nation and around the world, the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society (the Caring Society) has spearheaded Jordan’s Principle advocacy since 2005. Jordan’s Principle was first articulated in a series of extensive research reports that examined First Nations child welfare service funding (known as the Wen:de reports; for details see MacDonald & Walman, 2005). A motion (M-296) stating that “the government should immediately adopt a child first principle, based on Jordan's Principle, to resolve jurisdictional disputes involving the care of First Nations children” was passed unanimously in the House of Commons on December 12, 2007. Debate on the principle considered its applicability to all First Nations children. Member of Parliament (MP) Steven Blaney expressed the government’s support of Jordan’s Principle this way: MP Blaney’s paraphrasing of Jordan’s Principle corresponds to the position of the Caring Society, which defines Jordan’s Principle as applicable in situations where …