CEDAW/C/81/D/68/2014 1 The author of the communication is Jeremy Eugene Matson, 1 a national of Canada born on 1 April 1977. He is a member of the indigenous Squamish Nation. He submits the communication on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter, I.D.M., born on 29 May 2008, and his son, A.M.M., born on 31 August 2011. He claims that the State party has violated their rights under articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. He is not represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Canada on 18 January 2003. Facts as submitted by the author Determination by the State party as to who qualifies as indigenous 2.1 The author submits that, since the adoption of the Indian Act of 1876, with its provisions on registration as an “Indian”, the State party has discriminated against indigenous women and their descendants, denying them indigenous status, the right to determine their indigenous identity and their fundamental right to belong to a group of indigenous people. 2.2 The Indian Act is the legislative regime that has been imposed on First Nations to regulate their relationship with the Government. Under the Act, the federal Government maintains a status list (Indian Register) of persons identified as a “status Indian”. That status is a condition for gaining access to rights and benefits, such as health-care services, financial support for education, the right to reside on indigenous territories and the rights to hunt and fish on indigenous traditional lands. Most significantly, such status confers the ability to transmit it to one’s children, as well as a sense of acceptance within indigenous communities. 2.3 Prior to 1985, the Indian Act contained provisions that were explicitly discriminatory against indigenous women, taking away their status if they married non-status men and making the transmission of status to descendants dependent on the male line. 2.4 In 1981, in response to a complaint brought by Sandra Lovelace, a Mi 'kmaq woman, the Human Rights Committee found that the provisions of the Indian Act were discriminatory. 2 The Committee’s views led to the Act being amended with the intention of restoring Indian status to women who had been disenfranchised for marrying non-indigenous men. Those amendments, known as Bill C-31 of 1985, failed to remedy fully the legacy of discrimination and in fact perpe tuated further discrimination against the descendants of women who had lost their status. Bill C -31 created section 6 of the Indian Act, an entitlement and registration scheme comprising two main categories: section 6 (1), for individuals with two parents with status, whose children would have status regardless of whom they partnered with; and section 6 (2), for individuals with only one parent with status, whose children would be eligible for status only if the other parent of their children also had statu s. That rule, known as the “second generation cut-off”, was applied to all children born after 1985 and retroactively to all children of people regaining status. As a consequence, the grandchildren of women who had been disenfranchised could have status on ly if both of their parents had status. Although women would no longer lose their status because of whom they married, the new provisions created an unequal ability to pass status on to descendants. Under the new rules, children with only one status parent had a different form of status from that of children with two status parents. As a result of that unilateral determination by the State party as to who was a status Indian, thousands of indigenous women and their children were excluded from registration __________________ 1 2 2/19 The grandson of Nora Johnson, an indigenous woman from the Capilano Community, Squamish Nation. Human Rights Committee, Lovelace v. Canada, communication No. 24/1977, views of 30 July 1981. 22-03658