CEDAW/C/81/D/68/2014 based discrimination. He maintains that the ongoing discrimination under various versions of the Indian Act has plagued the members of his matrilineal indigenous bloodline since 1927, allowing four generations to be exposed to gender-based discrimination simply because his indigenous grandparent was female instead of male. State party’s additional observations 7.1 In observations submitted on 26 March 2015, the State party indicated that it respectfully disagreed with the conclusions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. 7.2 The State party submitted that, in February 2015, the Superior Court of Quebec had concluded its hearing of a constitutional challenge to the regi stration provisions of the Indian Act, in the case of Descheneaux v. Canada (Attorney General), in relation to someone in a very similar situation to the author. Given that the Court was expected to release its decision in August 2015, the State party was of the view that it would be inappropriate for the Committee to consider the merits of the communication while the issue remained before the Canadian courts. 7.3 On 6 May 2015, the State party submitted that, in the complaint submitted by the author, the Federal Court finally dismissed the judicial review. According to the State party, the author must bring a claim of discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 7.4 On 8 October 2015, the State party submitted that, in August 2015, the Superior Court of Quebec had rendered its decision in Descheneaux v. Canada (Attorney General), concluding that the registration provisions of the Indian Act violated the Charter. The Court ordered legislative amendments. The Attorney General submitted an appeal. The State party remains of the view that it would be inappropriate for the Committee to consider the merits of the communication while the issue raised remains active before the national courts. Suspension of consideration of the communication State party’s request for suspension 8. On 21 June 2016, the State party submitted that, in February 2016, the newly elected Government had withdrawn its appeal in Descheneaux v. Canada (Attorney General) and that it was exploring legislative changes. As that process would likely have an effect on the issues raised by the author, the State party requested that the Committee suspend consideration of the communication until the forthcoming policy process was completed. Suspension of consideration of the communication 9. On 14 March 2017, the Committee decided to suspend consideration of the communication until 24 August 2017, owing to the State party’s decision to explore legislative changes. Author’s comments on, and request to lift, the suspension 10. On 22 June 2017, the author submitted that he would have liked to have provided comments on the State party’s request for suspension of consideration of the communication prior the Committee taking its decision. He recalled that, on 16 June 2017, Bill S-3 – submitted in response to the judgment in Descheneaux v. Canada (Attorney General) – had been passed by Parliament. According to the author, Bill S-3 of 2017, Bill C-3 of 2011 and Bill C-31 of 1985 were three failed attempts to resolve the matter of gender-based discrimination. The author requested the Committee to lift the suspension of consideration of the communication. 22-03658 7/19