CEDAW/C/81/D/68/2014 State party’s request to maintain the suspension 11.1 On 24 August 2017, the State party submitted that, in October 2016, Bill S-3, “An act to amend the Indian Act to eliminate sex-based inequities in Indian registration”, was introduced in the Senate. 11.2 The State party provided an update to the Committee on the author’s complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act. After the Federal Court dismis sed the appeal of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as did the Federal Court of Appeal on 30 March 2017, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal; the case was scheduled to be heard in November 2017. Therefore, the State party requested the Committee to maintain the suspension of consideration of the communication. Author’s additional comments 12.1 On 11 October 2017, the author specified that the title of Bill S-3 had been changed to “An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Cour t of Quebec decision in Descheneaux v. Canada (Attorney General)”. 12.2 The author recalls that, according to the report of the Committee on its inquiry concerning Canada conducted under article 8 of the Optional Protocol, 9 the ongoing historical discrimination was a root cause of the abnormally high level of missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada. 12.3 On 13 December 2017, the author submitted that, the previous day, the Governor General had signed Bill S-3, containing provisions known to be discriminatory on the basis of gender, birth dates and marriage dates. He su bmitted that all of the amendments (Bill C-31, Bill C-3 and Bill S-3) have contained provisions that were discriminatory against his family. 12.4 On 14 June 2018, the author informed the Committee that, in his case, the Supreme Court had ruled that, because the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal could not overturn discriminatory laws, the Tribunal did not have the power to decide whether parts of the Indian Act were discriminatory. Lifting of the suspension of consideration of the communication 13. On 5 April 2019, the Committee decided to lift the suspension of consideration of the communication. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 14.1 On 29 June 2020, the State party reiterated its position that the author had not exhausted domestic remedies, having failed to bring a constitutional claim of discrimination. It clarifies that there are a number of avenues available to the author that might allow him to pursue a claim of discrimination, including by seeking pro bono legal representation or donations to fund his defence or applying to a legal aid programme or the Court Challenges Program. 14.2 The State party clarifies that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not allow for a challenge to the Indian Act where there is no allegation of a discriminatory practice. The question before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the author’s case was whether the author’s complaint was directly related to legislation, i.e. the Indian Act, or whether it was a complaint about a discriminatory practice. The Tribunal found that the author’s complaint had been properly characterized as a challenge to legislation. __________________ 9 8/19 CEDAW/C/OP.8/CAN/1. 22-03658