CEDAW/C/81/D/68/2014 section 6 (1), which left them unable to freely transmit their status to their own children, as a direct result of the disenfranchisement of their maternal ancestor. Canada had chosen to take a piecemeal approach to amending the discriminatory provisions, motivated only through numerous legal challenges, rather than to end the discrimination completely; (h) British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which submitted that the sex-based discrimination perpetuated by the Indian Act was antithetical to gender equality and dated back to 1850, when an “Indian” was legally defined as a male person of Indian blood. Today, Bill S-3 remained discriminatory. 15.5 The author submits that it is abnormal that the State party’s legislation determines who merits to belong, or not, to an indigenous people. The author’s ancestor, Chief Thomas Chilihtin of Cheakamus, was one of 16 leaders who, in 1921, amalgamated 16 indigenous communities into what is now the Squamish Nation. Prior to that, all of the communities faced immense pressures, given that their ancestral territories were surrounded by non-indigenous people acquiring their land and in the middle of rapid development. The Chief presented to the Royal Commission in North Vancouver, on behalf of the Squamish Nation, his prediction on the loss of their culture, stating that: “When the white man came, he was allowed to go where he pleased to hunt, trap or fish. Then our troubles began. The white man thought we ate too much fish and passed laws to prevent our people fishing, except for a short time each year.” The author submits that, still in 2020, the State party takes a similar approach through its policies that have banished and removed indigenous women, their children and their descendants from their communities, due to historical and current discrimination. State party’s additional submission 16.1 On 5 February 2021, the State party reiterated its position that sex-based inequities had been eliminated from the legislation. 16.2 The State party acknowledges that, according to the Department of Indigenous Services, the new cut-off date will likely require legislative changes. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 17.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. Pursuant to rule 72 (4) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, it is to do so before considering the merits of the communication. 17.2 In accordance with article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is satisfied that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 17.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, because, as a man, the author cannot claim to be a victim. The Committee also takes note of the author’s contentions that article 2 of the Optional Protocol does not require individuals submitting a communication and claiming to be victims of gender -based discrimination to be women, that the author and his children are victims because they are matrilineal indigenous descendants and that the State party discriminates against indigenous women and their descendants under the Indian Act. The Committee recalls that article 2 of the Optional Protocol establishes that communications may be submitted by or on behalf of “individuals”, without limiting the victim status to “women”. The Committee notes that the author claims, on his own behalf and on 12/19 22-03658