Le principe de Jordan : Une question cruciale pour les élections de 2025 concernant les enfants des Premières Nations

Le principe de Jordan, un programme conçu pour garantir aux enfants des Premières Nations un accès équitable aux services, demeure une question clé à l'approche des élections fédérales de 2025. Nommé d'après Jordan River Anderson, un garçon de la Nation Cree de Norway House qui est décédé en attendant des soins médicaux essentiels, le principe veille à ce que les enfants ne fassent pas face à des retards dans l'accès aux services à cause des différends de compétence entre les gouvernements.

Cependant, malgré son objectif, le programme du principe de Jordan rencontre d'importants défis. Récemment, des familles comme celle de Scarlet—une fillette de quatre ans de Thunder Bay atteinte d'autisme—ont vu leur financement pour des thérapies essentielles refusé, bien que le programme ait été conçu pour éviter de tels obstacles. La famille de Scarlet avait précédemment reçu une subvention de 190 000 $ pour soutenir sa thérapie, mais une demande ultérieure pour un financement continu a été rejetée, laissant la famille dans une situation précaire. Sans ces soins critiques, la famille craint que Scarlet ne régresse et perde sa capacité à parler.

Ce refus de financement et l’augmentation du retard accumulé de 140 000 demandes ont provoqué l'indignation des dirigeants et des défenseurs des Premières Nations. En réponse, la Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne a ordonné en décembre que le gouvernement fédéral règle le retard accumulé et crée un mécanisme de plaintes indépendant. Mais malgré cette décision, nombreux sont ceux qui estiment que le gouvernement n’a pas respecté ses obligations légales et continue de priver les enfants des Premières Nations des services essentiels.

En mars 2025, le gouvernement fédéral a annoncé qu'il continuerait de financer le principe de Jordan jusqu'en 2026. Bien que cette prolongation ait été accueillie positivement, la ministre des Services aux Autochtones, Patty Hajdu, a reconnu la nécessité de traiter le retard accumulé et les défis liés à la fourniture de services équitables et en temps opportun. Le gouvernement a investi 8,8 milliards de dollars dans le programme depuis 2016, mais les changements apportés au programme, notamment le resserrement du champ des demandes admissibles, ont suscité des inquiétudes concernant une réduction plutôt qu'une expansion des services.

L'importance du principe de Jordan dans les élections de 2025 ne saurait être sous-estimée. Le programme est essentiel pour garantir que les enfants des Premières Nations aient les mêmes opportunités que les autres enfants au Canada. À l'approche de l'élection, les électeurs doivent être conscients de la manière dont la gestion du principe de Jordan par le gouvernement fédéral affectera l'avenir des enfants des Premières Nations à travers le pays.

Les élections de 2025 représentent une occasion de garantir que les enfants des Premières Nations reçoivent le soutien dont ils ont besoin et que le gouvernement fédéral soit tenu responsable de ses promesses de fournir des services équitables à tous les enfants, indépendamment de leur origine.

plus d'informations: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/thunder-bay-family-denied-jordans-principle-1.7501545 

Jordan's Principle: A Critical Election Issue for First Nations Children

Jordan's Principle, a program designed to ensure First Nations children receive equitable access to services, should be a key issue as the 2025 federal election approaches. Named after Jordan River Anderson, a boy from the Norway House Cree Nation who died while waiting for essential medical care, the principle ensures that children do not face delays in receiving services due to jurisdictional disputes between governments.

However, despite its intent, the Jordan's Principle program is experiencing significant challenges. Recently, families like Scarlet's—a four-year-old from Thunder Bay with autism—have been denied essential therapy funding, even though the program was originally designed to prevent such barriers. Scarlet's family had previously received a $190,000 grant to support her therapy, but a subsequent request for continued funding was denied, leaving the family in a precarious situation. Without this critical care, there is fear that Scarlet may regress and lose her ability to speak.

This denial of funding and the increasing backlog of 140,000 requests has sparked outrage among First Nations leaders and advocates. In response, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled in December that the federal government must address the backlog and create an independent complaints mechanism. But despite this ruling, many argue that the government has failed to meet its legal obligations and continues to deny critical services to First Nations children.

In March 2025, the federal government announced that it would continue funding Jordan's Principle through 2026. While this extension was welcomed, Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu acknowledged the need to address the backlog and the challenges in providing timely and equitable services. The government has invested $8.8 billion into the program since 2016, but changes to the program, including narrowing the scope of eligible requests, have raised concerns that services are being cut back rather than expanded.

The importance of Jordan's Principle in the 2025 election cannot be overstated. The program is critical for ensuring that First Nations children receive the same opportunities as other children in Canada. As the election approaches, voters should be aware of how the federal government’s handling of Jordan's Principle will impact the future of First Nations children across the country.

The 2025 election presents an opportunity to ensure that First Nations children receive the support they need, and that the federal government is held accountable for its promises to provide equitable services for all children, regardless of their background.

More information: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/thunder-bay-family-denied-jordans-principle-1.7501545 

To Vote or Not to Vote: Indigenous Peoples Face a Choice

In 2015, something rare happened in Canada: hope, passion, mobilization. Carried by the Idle No More movement, a generation of Indigenous people believed that politics could truly change our lives. We elected the highest number of Indigenous Members of Parliament in the country’s history. Voter turnout in ridings with high Indigenous populations saw a remarkable increase. For a brief moment, it seemed that Justin Trudeau’s promise — “no relationship is more important than the one with Indigenous peoples” — was finally coming true.

And yet, nine and a half years later, the results are mixed. Yes, there were victories: the Indigenous Languages Act, Bill C-92 on child and family services, the incorporation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian law. But there were also failures, broken promises, bureaucratic silence, and deep institutional inertia.

The clearest symbol of this failure remains the Indian Act, still in force — a piece of colonial legislation from 1876. How, in 2025, can we still uphold a law that classifies Indigenous peoples as wards of the state? A law that governs our lands, our wills, our civil rights, as if we were incapable of self-determination? Even after a decade of fine words and symbolic reconciliation, this supposedly “priority” relationship was never truly based on real respect. Marc Miller is gone. Justin Trudeau is gone. And the Indian Act is still here. We’ve merely tinkered around the edges of the Canadian system, without ever transforming its heart.

Now, we approach a new election: Pierre Poilievre versus Mark Carney. On one side, a combative, populist Conservative — but at least consistent in his positions. On the other, a well-spoken, polished technocrat — but with no clear vision for First Nations. I’m sure he offers a firm handshake — but has he ever left Bay Street to sit and listen to an Elder by the fire?

I remember meeting Stephen Poloz, former Governor of the Bank of Canada, before the Standing Committee on Finance. The Bank of Canada controls how our economy works — including the economies of Indigenous peoples and communities. They’re the ones holding the reins. I asked him a simple question: “What’s your connection to Indigenous peoples?” He answered, with a faint smile and equal simplicity: “Once, I drove through a reserve while on vacation.” I wonder if Mark Carney is just driving through, too.

I’m not saying Pierre Poilievre would be better. I’m only saying that Indigenous people no longer have trust. Not in the electoral process, not in the promises. In 2015, we had hope. In 2025, we have memory. The memory of Tina Fontaine, of Joyce Echaquan, of Ashlee Shingoose, of Chanie Wenjack. And the memory of a government that, despite ceremonies, conferences, and accolades, chose to preserve the colonial foundations of Canada.

Today, our youth are more cynical than ever. They see elections as a game meant for others. And who can blame them? When we’re still waiting for clean water, decent housing, or justice for our missing and murdered sisters — it’s hard to believe in campaign promises.

But is abstention the answer? Perhaps a Conservative government, driven by necessity, will do what the Liberals never dared: abolish the Indian Act and build a new relationship based on treaties, equality, and mutual respect. Sometimes, a presumed enemy can become an unexpected ally.

It’s time to speak the truth: this country is still afraid to recognize us as nations. It fears our strength, our languages, our economies, our systems of governance. Perhaps it is not Ottawa’s role to define who we are — but ours, through the ballot box or through the rebuilding of our own systems.

The Indian Act, driving through the reserve,
“Yes, Governor, shine your shoes, Governor.”
Always polite, always prompt: “Right away, Governor.”
But do we, at last, have a vision that dreams?

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/espaces-autochtones/2151128/vote-autochtones-abstention-promesses