A/HRC/27/52/Add.2 were married prior to 1985); individuals with 6(1) status pass on status to their children. Children with only one 6(1) status parent are accorded 6(2) status, which means they do not have the right to pass Indian status to their children unless their child’s other parent has either 6(1) or 6(2) status.24 55. The enactment of the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act remediated some of the ongoing discriminatory effects of historical provisions that revoked the Indian status of women – and all their descendants – who married non-status men, while granting status to non-aboriginal women – and their descendants – who married status Indians. Unfortunately, as acknowledged by the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights, this legislation did “not deal with all sex discrimination stemming from the Indian Act”;25 some classes of people continue to be excluded from status on the basis of the historical discrimination against matrilineal descent. This two-parent rule is the context for another problematic policy regarding unstated paternity, which arises if the child is a product of violence, rape, or incest, cases in which the need to obtain proof of status from the father places the mother at risk. Under this policy, any father who is not identified in the birth registration of an infant is presumed not to be a registered Indian unless the mother provides sworn proof from the father or his family acknowledging paternity. 56. Métis membership is not defined under the Indian Act or other legislation. Facing objections by the Government that it was not possible to identify members of the Métis community, the Supreme Court has concluded that identity is demonstrated where a person has an ancestral connection to the community, self-identifies as a member and is accepted as such by the community.26 This approach has been lauded for allowing for more flexibility and indigenous control over membership. 57. Inuit membership lists are maintained by each of the four beneficiary organizations in Canada (Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Makivik Corporation and the Nunatsiavut Government). In each case, they establish their own criteria, generally based on ancestry and self-identification as an Inuk. D. The modern treaty and other claims processes 58. Over the past decades, Canada has taken determined action to address ongoing aspects of the history of misdealing and harm inflicted on aboriginal peoples in the country, a necessary step towards helping to remedy their current disadvantage. Perhaps most significantly, it has legislation, policy and processes in place to address historical grievances of indigenous peoples with respect to treaty and aboriginal rights, In this regard, Canada is an example to the world. Settlement agreements and other arrangements achieved provide important examples of reconciliation and accommodation of indigenous and national interests. 59. Modern treaties, also referred to as comprehensive land claims agreements, deal with areas over which indigenous peoples have claims that have not been addressed through historical treaties or other legal means. Since 1973, 24 comprehensive land claims agreements have been concluded and are in effect. They cover approximately 40 per cent of Canada’s land mass and affect 95 indigenous communities.27 At the provincial level, the British Columbia Treaty Process was established in 1993 to resolve outstanding claims to 24 25 26 27 Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5, s. 6(2), 7. Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, Sixth Report (7 December 2010). R. v. Powley, 2003 SCC 43 (Supreme Court of Canada). AANDC website, “Fact sheet: comprehensive land claims”. 15