CEDAW/C/81/D/68/2014 Access to justice 2.9 In 2008, the author filed a discrimination complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Canadian Human Rights Commission found that the complaint had merit and forwarded it to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a hearing. However, in 2012, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled, in Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada Revenue Agency, that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider complaints of discrimination concerning an act of Parliament. The Commission filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was denied. As a consequence, on 24 May 2013, the Tribunal, concluding that the complaint essentially sought to challenge legislation, rather than a discriminatory practice, ruled that it could not hear the author’s complaint concerning the provisions of the Indian Act. Complaint 3.1 The author submits that all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal denied his complaint and, in Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada Revenue Agency, the Supreme Court ruled that the Indian Act cannot be challenged under the Canadian Human Rights Act. There is therefore no effective domestic remedy available in the State party to challenge historical and ongoing discrimination on the basis of matrilineal descent. 3.2 The Indian Act does not allow for the author to pass on his status to and determine the cultural identity of his children. Indeed, because the author is of matrilineal, and not patrilineal, indigenous descent, he has been denied his status an d his full identity as indigenous; the fact that his children continue to be denied status and their right to determine their own identity as indigenous has an impact on their cultural acceptance within the Squamish Nation. As a consequence, the Indian Act constitutes a violation of the fundamental right of the author and his children to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with its traditions and customs. 3.3 The author submits that the case concerns: (a) long -standing and ongoing legislative gender-based discrimination against indigenous women and their descendants, which results in the cultural assimilation of indigenous peoples by denying their fundamental right to determine their own identity; (b) the lack of adequate consultation with indigenous peoples when amending the legislation affecting them; and (c) a violation of the right to access remedies. The author therefore claims violations of his and his children’s rights under articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. 3.4 The author requests that the Committee recommend that the State party provide equal registration to all indigenous persons of matrilineal descent. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 8 January 2015, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. It submits that the communication should be found inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, because, as a man, the author cannot claim to be a victim of violations under the Convention. 4.2 In addition, the State party maintains that the distinction alleged by the author is made not on the basis of gender, but rather on lineage, which is not grounds of discrimination under the Convention. The communication should therefore be found inadmissible under article 4 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 4.3 The State party submits that the communication is also inadmissible owing to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, given that the author’s complaint lodged 4/19 22-03658