Kwey Petition Signatories, The Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA) and the Famous Six Solidarity Campaign did not achieve the “6(1)a All the Way” clause as was hoped. On November 7th, 2017 the government representative in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder tabled a motion that stated the post 1951 hierarchy between 6(1)a men and 6(1)c re-instated women would be addressed in Bill S-3. This is a concession on the part of Canada. Another concession offered in the motion stated that the 1951 cut off issue would be resolved sometime in the future; not if but rather at a time in the future. More specifically clauses will be added that address these matters. Another concession is a timeline, not an exact date, will be added to the Bill. This motion was passed on November 9th, 2017. I admit that many people will be unable to perceive these concessions. I too struggle with them. ---------------- People interested in reading the Senate transcripts can find them at this link: https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8532485 ---------------- Further, I am finding the news coverage to be vague and unclear. Here are three links that may help: 1. Senator Lillian Dyck on APTN: http://aptnnews.ca/newscasts/ Move to the 12 minute mark here and you will hear Senator Lillian Dyck explain that the House of Commons now officially acknowledges an issue with the pre 1951 cut off, yet a legal remedy will not be proclaimed into law through Bill S-3. Rather, as was always Canada's position, further consultations are required. It is my understanding the concession/s made was in terms of acknowledging the issue and adding a timeline for the consultations to the Bill re addressing this ongoing sex discrimination. 2. The Globe and Mail: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/government-removing-historical-sexism-from-indian-act-after-senates-insistence/article36873032/ “While most of the provisions of Bill S-3 will come into effect immediately after it becomes law, the clause dealing with the cutoff will be brought into force after consultations with First Nations that will begin next year, Mr. Harder said.” “‘Colleagues, let me be clear, these consultations are about how to remove the 1951 cutoff, not whether to do it,’ said Mr. Harder, who added that the legislation requires the government to report back to Parliament within 12 months to explain how consultations are proceeding.” “Shelagh Day, chair of the human-rights committee of the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, which lobbied hard to have the sexism removed from the Indian Act, is concerned that there is no specific date set for removing the 1951 cutoff. But, Ms. Day said, it sounds like a positive step forward. ‘It sounds as though the government is conceding that there is still discrimination in the Indian Act that must be removed.’” 3. The National Post: http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberal-government-concedes-to-senate-on-sex-based-discrimination-in-indian-act “On Tuesday Liberals announced they would address the Senate’s concerns, but they may not necessarily go as far as the Senate amendment’s nickname — 6(1)a ‘all the way’ — suggests.” “Liberals are willing to eliminate a cut-off in the Indian Act that extended eligibility to descendants of women removed from the register after marrying non-Indians, but only for those born since the Indian Act took effect in 1951.” “The new amendment would also give full Indian status to women who lost status because of sex-based inequities and to their descendants born prior to 1985.” “Based on existing Indian register data for the 2016 population, about 50,160 people would become newly eligible on the strictest interpretation of what the government is proposing, while 86,900 people would become newly eligible under an ‘all the way’ amendment.”