Confusion followed Ottawas crackdown on Jordans Principle as costs topped $2B

Internal documents show federal bureaucrats struggled to understand new rules and shifting eligibility standards set by high-level departmental officials for the Jordan’s Principle program. In February, the federal government moved to rein in spending on Jordan’s Principle, the groundbreaking program that pays for health, education, and social services for First Nations children. Costs were climbing fast — from $1.07 billion in 2020–21 to $1.7 billion in 2022–23, according to the government’s own figures — and inside Indigenous Services Canada (ISC), alarms were going off. “The volume of requests has outpaced available resources and capacity, creating backlogs and delays. Forecasted expenditures for 2024–2025 are tracking to reach over $2 billion,” a departmental PowerPoint warned. To contain costs and regain control, ISC issued a directive on Feb. 10, with new rules that tightened eligibility and made it harder for families and communities to apply for help. Some services were cut altogether, and the application process was more challenging for children in group-based programs. More than 1,000 pages of internal records reveal that in the days and weeks after the high-level decision, staff tasked with running the program were left confused—grappling with vague criteria, shifting eligibility rules, and an unclear approvals process. Meanwhile, children received uneven treatment, where some were in communities that received services while others were denied. The documents were obtained by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society (Caring Society) through an Access to Information request and shared with APTN News. Cindy Blackstock, the executive director of the Caring Society, said she filed the request to determine whether the government’s decision to cut Jordan’s Principle was based on evidence, planning, and evaluation or simply a rushed attempt to save money. “It’s clear to me… looking at this access to information, that this was just somebody who, off the back of a paper napkin, said, ‘we need to save money, let’s cut Jordan’s Principle and then we’ll figure it out as we go,’” said Blackstock after reading the documents. “And unfortunately for children, that simply wasn’t good enough for them and many of them were harmed, are still being harmed.” What led to the February 10 policy shift? Jordan’s Principle was created to prevent First Nations children from falling through jurisdictional cracks, as did Jordan River Anderson, a child from Norway House Cree Nation in Manitoba who had multiple disabilities. Jordan lived most of his life in a hospital because the federal and Manitoba governments were bickering over who should pay for his healthcare if he went home. Jordan’s Principle expanded—under orders from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal) —to cover a broader range of health and education needs and address systemic discrimination. For many children, it became a lifeline — filling gaps in food, housing, mental health, and other critical services. As demand grew, officials feared the program would become unsustainable — or worse, collapse under its own weight, according to documents. In November 2024, the Tribunal heard evidence from ISC that the program was being used to fund services that seemed out of scope, like video game consoles and modelling headshots. Blackstock argued that the complaints were unfounded, noting that ISC has long held the authority to decline requests that fall beyond the program’s intended mandate. Regardless, the department used a decision issued by the Tribunal to issue the February directive that restricted services. In a bulletin shared both internally and publicly on Feb 10, ISC said requested items for sports, school-related materials, home renovations and a host of non-medical services were no longer offered unless they met the legal standard of “substantive equality” — a concept not clearly defined in the documents. APTN independently reviewed the complete package of documents. Internal emails, PowerPoints and briefing notes repeatedly state that the goal of the February bulletin was to reduce costs for “sustainability” and to rein in rising expenses. The documents show how those changes played out inside the department, sparking confusion, delays, and frustration — for public servants, service providers, and families who rely on the program. Jordan’s Principle became a “first resort” Internal data showed approvals for short-term mental health services nearly doubled in two years — from 42,679 in 2021–22 to 76,335 in 2023–24. Medical transportation, nutrition support and requests for personal support workers also surged. Internal records show the program was increasingly used for urgent, day-to-day needs, including baby formula, groceries, rent, counselling, mobility equipment and even home repairs. Some service requests increased because of the pandemic, but many reflected long-standing gaps and difficulty accessing services that are supposed to be provided by the province, according to internal documents. The government records noted the program had “become a first resort, rather than last resort.” “It’s easier to access Jordan’s Principle than provincial services,” said a First Nation stakeholder at a February 2024 meeting. Some inside ISC saw this as mission creep – an unplanned use of the program. A 2023 briefing warned the program was “expanding beyond what was originally intended.” Delays, confusion and inconsistent decisions After the Feb. 10 bulletin, which restricted services, internal concerns piled up. For example, frontline staff turned to “Daily Urgent Escalations” calls to interpret the new directives. In one case, a regional official directed frontline staff who were providing meals to a homeless family to cut off the parents. “We cannot approve meals for adults as they fall above the age of majority. I understand that the region previously approved meals for adults, but it’s important to adhere to our guidelines moving forward,” the regional official wrote. “The region does not have the authority to approve products or services for individuals above the age of majority, particularly in cases related to accommodations for homelessness. We will provide meals for the children. I appreciate you understanding and ensuring we follow the directives provided by HQ leadership.” However, a director within the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch (FNIHB) debated the decision and asked how it would apply to other cases. For instance, would they continue providing meals and accommodations when parents or guardians were required to travel with their children for medical care? He warned that directives shared only on “rapid fire” calls were inconsistent and, without written guidance, left frontline workers without clear rules to follow. Changes to group requests overwhelmed workers and raised red flags over privacy School gym at Onigaming First Nation. Onigaming is one of the communities who lost access to funding for group servcies after Feb. 10. Photo: APTN. Before the new directives in the Feb 10, bulletin, organizations offering services to large groups, meaning more than 50 children, could apply for group service if they declared they had information on hand proving children were eligible. After the Feb. 10 bulletin, new documentation requirements meant that every child in a group had to be named, their date of birth collected and their First Nations identity confirmed on the application. In addition, each child in the group needed an individual needs assessment and a written support letter from a qualified professional explaining how the service or support directly addresses their needs. The new rules were also applied retroactively to children whose applications were already stuck in a backlog. In a Feb. 13 letter to acting assistant deputy minister Julian Castonguay, the Caring Society warned that “many of these children have been waiting several months or longer to receive a determination on their request. Applying this bulletin retroactively amounts to shifting goalposts, is procedurally unfair, and risks exasperating the backlog, furthering delays to children.” The impact on the ground played out immediately. In an internal email, a regional official asked headquarters for permission to approve food vouchers for 300 children—acknowledging it would be an exception under the new rules, but arguing it was necessary, as all the surrounding communities had already received that exact support under the old rules. ISC began preparing a Frequently Asked Questions guide for a Special Jordan’s Principle Operations Committee conference call on Feb. 25, showing the department was still scrambling to provide clarity more than two weeks after the bulletin was released. One question in the draft FAQ provided insight into how the new rules were affecting remote communities: “What if there is a limited range of professionals in a community who can make recommendations?” one FAQ asked. The response read: “We recognize that not all communities have a full range of health, social, and educational professionals available… All requests are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the context of the community and substantive equality will be taken into account.” In an email dated Feb. 28, a program co-ordinator working in the northern region warned that the new requirement for group applications would create a mountain of paperwork, adding to an already existing backlog. “We have a few questions/concerns around entering names for every child in our large group requests, some of which reach 750 to 1,000 children… this will create hours of additional work for the group intake staff per request received,” he wrote. “We already have limited staff and this process threatens to overwhelm our staffing capacity…” The same official noted the department’s collection of case histories for each child might violate the Privacy Act. He asked if there would be any limit on the health information collected and how that information would be handled and protected. “Partners have questions about why we need to collect this information now,” he wrote, noting that under the Privacy Act, a government institution can only collect personal information if it directly relates to the operation of one of its programs or activities. “If up to now, a declaration by the entity offering the services was acceptable, does ISC need this personal information to operate Jordan’s principle?” he asked. “Is there some communication we can use with partners to speak to privacy concerns?” A PowerPoint presentation circulated on Feb. 28, underscoring the confusion and lack of clarity that had been mounting for weeks. It flagged “inconsistencies and ambiguities in operational documents” and a “need for clear and standardized processes,” alongside warnings about administrative burden and efficiency. The slides acknowledged that ISC had still not produced a finalized FAQ, leaving frontline staff to navigate the changes on their own. Read More: Wendat Nation twins may have school year threatened because of Jordan’s Principle delays Federal court appeal in Powless case could impact thousands of children cut off from Jordan’s Principle Mother says son is running out of time while family repeatedly denied by Jordan’s Principle The ATIP release also included a small number of letters from external organizations responding to ISC’s sudden Feb.10 directive. A school division serving 600 First Nations students wrote that Jordan’s Principle had filled critical gaps for 80 of their learners, producing “incredible” growth — but asked whether they could continue applying under the new rules, now that school-based services were being redirected to provincial boards. A Dene organization raised concern over the sudden end of multi-year funding for school bus services, education, and cultural programming, warning it would be harder “to continue to close the gap for our children.” Blackstock characterizes the internal communications and shifting directives captured in the documents as “chaos.” “ They should have been making more references to the legal orders that they are required to follow with Jordan’s principle that draws their attention specifically to the needs and best interest of the children. That should have been their guiding light as they implemented these reforms,” she said. “Good public policy needs to be informed by evidence. It needs to have a planned rollout. It needs to have impact assessments and evaluations and it needs to be retooled if it doesn’t work.” Continue Reading