CEDAW/C/81/D/68/2014 historical facts, legal and jurisdiction[al] issue[s] and sociological phenomen[a] that must be understood to properly adjudicate these claims. 11 15.3 The author submits that not all provisions that are discriminatory on the basis of gender have been removed from the Indian Act; section 6 still provides for differential treatment of the author and his descendants. Indeed, the current 1985 cutoff date is as arbitrary as the former 1951 cut-off date, because it still displaces or disentitles indigenous women’s descendants from registration a nd is one of many intersecting components that result in the denial of the author’s children and future grandchildren of equal entitlement. In that regard, in her report to Parliament of 2019, 12 the Special Representative of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Claudette Dumont-Smith, highlighted that: “Whether an individual is born or married before or after the effective date of Bill C-31 (April 17, 1985) may impact registration of individuals and result in the denial of status and related benefits .” She noted that all persons who currently were entitled under section 6 (2) – as is the case for the author’s children – should become entitled under section 6 (1). In conclusion, according to the author, the long-standing distinction between the recognition of status for patrilineal descendants, but not matrilineal descendants, has contributed to the stigmatization of descendants of the maternal line. 15.4 The author further transmits dozens of letters of support from international non-governmental organizations, national indigenous organizations and universities, including the following: (a) Cultural Survival, which disagreed with the State party’s assessment that the case was moot, given that there continued to be ongoing effects of the provisions that were discriminatory on the basis of gender in the Indian Act. Indeed, Bill S -3 did not adequately resolve the discrimination faced by the descendants of disenfranchised indigenous women. The text was adopted excluding the Senate Committee’s amendment, which would have given indigenous women and their descendants born prior to 17 April 1985 equal status with indigenous men and their descendants born prior to 17 April 1985. In particular, the changes did allow the author’s children to enrol as status Indians, but did not, as recommended by the Committee, 13 ensure that descendants of indigenous women enjoyed the same status rights as descendants of indigenous men. The author’s children were able to register only under section 6 (2), which did not permit individuals to transmit their status to their own children, unless a child’s other parent also possessed Indian status. Although the amended policy was not explicitly discriminatory against indigenous women, it failed to remedy effectively the earlier discriminatory policy; if the author’s grandmother had retained full status, then the author’s children would have been eligible under section 6 (1) and would have been able to pass on their status to their children, regardless of the status of their future partner. The cut-off rule continued to disenfranchise the descendants of indigenous women on the basis of gender. Such bureaucratic rules violated the principle of self determination and the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples, as recognized in articles 8 and 9 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, endorsed by Canada, to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with its traditions and practices. Cultural Survival encouraged the Committee to fully resolve the ongoing historical discrimination and to acknowledge the author’s widespread support across indigenous peoples and their organizations. Cultural Survival also expressed its concern regarding the State party’s claim that the author had not exhausted all domestic remedies; he had spent countless hours over 10 years bringing his case to the Supreme Court. In declining to rule on his case, the Supreme __________________ 11 12 13 10/19 Naiomi Metallic, “The door has a tendency to swing shut: the saga of Aboriginal peo ples’ equality claims”, 2 August 2014. Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3044849. Available at www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1560878580290/1568897675238. CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/8-9, para. 13. 22-03658