Electronic letters to:

Editorial:
Noni MacDonald, MD MSc and Amir Attaran, LLB PhD
Jordan's Principle, governments' paralysis
CMAJ 2007; 177: 321 [Full text] [PDF]
*eLetters: Submit a response to this article

Electronic letters published:

[Read eLetter] We are not privileged residents
Gwen J Apetagon   (19 September 2007)
[Read eLetter] Jordan's problems were due to the division of Canada
Michael C Copeman   (23 August 2007)
[Read eLetter] Editorial in Jordan's Principle and Legal Process
Douglas F McArthur   (23 August 2007)
[Read eLetter] Jordan's Principle
Brian P H Green   (17 August 2007)

We are not privileged residents 19 September 2007
Previous eLetter Top
Gwen J Apetagon

Send letter to journal:
Re: We are not privileged residents

gapetagon{at}minisowin.org Gwen J Apetagon

This is in response to Brian Green's comments concerning Jordan’s Principle. You resent being dubbed as “white.” Well, we resent being dubbed as “Indian” because we are not Indians. Christopher Columbus made the error when he believed he was in India and still today we are dubbed ‘Indian” or “Aboriginal” or “First Nation” or other derogatory names which I do not care to go into. Sure, some and I mean some of our medication is paid for. But Jordan represented the truth about "Aboriginal" people's access to medical care. No one wants to take responsibility for their well-being. No one wanted to ensure that Jordan received the right to experience a family life. No one wanted to finance Jordan health care needs because he had been living on-reserve where there were no services available to him - the same right across Canada. The government took away our land, took away our rights to our resources and our rights to continue to govern ourselves. We are not privileged residents. We have lost so much and so many of our people but we are still surviving. We work hard every day, battling with the social issues left behind from the residential school, with the impact of the Babies Scoop of the 60’s. We work everyday to earn a living and our wages do not compare with those living in the urban areas and our basic needs that we purchase such as food, clothing, hygiene supplies and others have transportation costs included in the retail price. It is wrong to say that the people who are called “Aboriginals”, who were roped into living on reserve land that was not fit for occupancy by the “white” settlers are privileged residents. Listen to the news. We are being compared to third world countries! So, I am sorry that you got offended about being dubbed “white” but I think we have a lot to be offended about but many of my people are forgiving and just forge ahead and make every attempt to make a difference for the grandchildren so they can have what is rightfully theirs. Ekosani.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared
Jordan's problems were due to the division of Canada 23 August 2007
Previous eLetter Next eLetter Top
Michael C Copeman
Manly Hospital, Sydney

Send letter to journal:
Re: Jordan's problems were due to the division of Canada

mcopeman{at}bigpond.net.au Michael C Copeman

The sad editorial about bureaucratic infighting blocking provisions for Jordan's special needs fails to recognise the underlying cause of such problems. Canada is one country, and the people who live there (regardless of race, and how long their forebears have lived in this part of the world) should be treated equally. As long as there are different welfare systems within Canada, there will be disputes between them over who covers what - and these will impair ability to deliver services. Canada's mistake in the second half of the 20th Century was to set up new "nations" and bureaucracies to match. Hopefully, this mistake will be reversed, with courage, in the 21st Century.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared
Editorial in Jordan's Principle and Legal Process 23 August 2007
Previous eLetter Next eLetter Top
Douglas F McArthur
Simon Fraser University

Send letter to journal:
Re: Editorial in Jordan's Principle and Legal Process

doug_mcarthur{at}sfu.ca Douglas F McArthur

I whole heartedly support the application of Jordan's Principle to health care services for aboriginal people. Far too much damage has been done to fragile lives as a result of federal provincial bickering, much of it rooted in a long term federal strategy to make life on reserves as unattractive an option for First Nations people as possible.

However, caution should be exercised in using aboriginal rights litigation as a strategy for forcing a change in policy, as is suggested by one of the authors. Too many lawyers over-promise on the potential of aboriginal rights litigation to resolve these kinds of issues. In the last few years as much has been lost as gained in such litigation. For instance the reliance on rights litigation has provided governments with Supreme Court sanctioned powers of infringement unimagined ten years ago. Not all policy errors can be successfully corrected through such rights litigation. Would a better strategy not be to appeal to the courts on the basis of administrative law and equality principles? All aboriginal rights litigation should be subjected to a precautionary principle test by proponents. Save it for cases where there is a high probability of a clear and clean win.

Doug McArthur Professor of Public Policy Simon Fraser University

Conflict of Interest:

None declared
Jordan's Principle 17 August 2007
Next eLetter Top
Brian P H Green,
180 Summit Ave Thunder Bay On
none

Send letter to journal:
Re: Jordan's Principle

bphgreen{at}shaw.ca Brian P H Green

Your editorial on "Jordan's Principle" is provocative, but wrong.

If there's any discrimination against the people of Norway House, it's not based on race, it's based on geography. And that kind of discrimination is not only justified, it's inevitable in a country such as this. People aren't free to change their race; and neither can they choose to change the racial label they're powerlessly assigned by others. But we can choose where we live: and it's absurd to expect the same level of service in North Overshoe as in downtown Toronto, regardless of one's ethnicity.

Your commentators also write that "many of the services Jordan needed would be paid for without question for a white Manitoban ...". This statement is not only factually incorrect (come on , now; housing modifications paid for by OHIP??!!), it encompasses the real racism here. I say this for two reasons.

First, there's the ill-advised use of the word "white". I'd much prefer "non-aboriginal". I resent being defined as white: I'm much more than "white", and would choose my "whiteness" as the last of a long list of things that constitute my identity. Not only that, but a major proportion of other Canadians not covered by the Indian Act (South Asians, Blacks, Indians) would hardly agree with being labelled "white".

And second, if any group of people are discriminated against by our unfortunately race-based constitution, it's non-aboriginals. After all, it's me who doesn't get my prescription drugs paid for by the taxpayer, not the privileged residents of Norway House.

One final point. As to the unseemly dispute over payment between Manitoba and Ottawa, this was clearly Ottawa's responsibility. As usual, the federal government is good at spouting the usual self-righteous platitudes, but an utter failure when it comes to actually delivering a real health care service.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared