CEDAW/C/81/D/68/2014 peoples’ organizations and leading advocates for indigenous women’s rights who called for a process of broader reform to fully and fi nally eliminate all discriminatory provisions of the Act concerning registration status. The Committee notes that the State party argues that it has fully met its obligations under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, because there is no more gender-based discrimination, but a differentiation based only on birth and marriage dates, and because the level of consultations with indigenous peoples is not relevant to the question of whether the registration provisions are discriminatory against women. 18.6 The Committee observes that, prior to 1985, the Indian Act contained provisions that were explicitly discriminatory against indigenous women by taking away their Indian status if they married non-status men. The author’s paternal grandmother, the daughter of a leader of the Squamish Nation, lost her Indian status because she married a non-indigenous man after having been forcibly placed by the State party in a residential school. When the author was born, he was not entitled to Indian status. 18.7 The Committee notes that, although the amendments of 1985 allowed for women who had been disenfranchised for marrying non-indigenous men to have their indigenous status restored, they perpetuated further discrimination against those women’s descendants by creating a registration scheme to classify “Indians” into two main categories and by creating a second generation cut-off rule that applied only to maternal descendants of the indigenous women who had been disenfranchised. As a result, the author’s paternal grandmother recovered her Indian status but was able to pass on only limited status to her son (the author’s father). The author’s registration was therefore denied at that time. 18.8 The Committee observes that the amendments of 2011 allowed for the grandchildren of disenfranchised women to regain eligibility, provided that they were born after 1951, under a limited status that made their ability to transmit status to their own children dependent on the status of the other parent. Once again, that restriction did not apply to status Indians who, because they traced their descent from the male line, were not affected by the disenfranchisements of the past. As a result, the author was registered for Indian status the first time, but only under the more restrictive form of such status; he could not pass on his status to his children. By comparison, descendants from a single status Indian grandfather would never have lost status and therefore would be able to pass on their status. The Committee observes that the State party itself recognized that, with the amendments of 2011, for the first time, the author was eligible for status under section 6 (2), i.e., although he had received status, he would not be eligible to transmit his status to his children, but that, on the contrary, the grandchildren of indigenous men who had married non-indigenous women prior to 1985 had status under section 6 (1), rather than 6 (2); unlike the author’s children, a great-grandchild of an indigenous man was also eligible to be registered. 18.9 The Committee notes that, with the amendments of 2019, because of his grandmother’s adjusted registration under new paragraph 6 (1) (a.1), the author was registered under new paragraph 6 (1) (a.3). His children, whose status has now been recognized for the first time, are registered only under section 6 (2), which confers more limited status, because their parents were married after the 1985 cut -off date. Therefore, they are not allowed to freely transmit their status to their own children, unless their children’s other parent also possesses Indian status. The Committee observes that, according to the report of the Special Representative of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, all persons who are currently eligible to be registered under the section 6 (2) provision should be entitled under section 6 (1). The Committee also observes that specialists in indigenous rights are of the view that, because the amendments of 2019 were adopted without the proposed amendment that would have given indigenous women and their descendants equal status with 22-03658 17/19