“The impact of colonization and assimilation strategies aided in altering First Nations traditional values and social structures, often replacing or enforcing the colonizers cultural values on First Nations societies. First Nations women's roles and responsibilities in the decision making process throughout North American societies were strategically targeted in the goal of assimilation and loss of culture." - the Assembly of the First Nations in its submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in May 2006.

In its latest examination of the periodic report of Canada, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed concerns that "the disparities still persist between Aboriginal peoples and the rest of the Canadian population in the enjoyment of Covenant rights, as well as the discrimination still experienced by Aboriginal women in matters of matrimonial property". The Committee held that the long-standing issues of discrimination against First Nations women and their children, in matters relating to Indian status, band membership, and matrimonial real property on reserve lands had a negative impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights of some First Nations women and their children under the Covenant.

The ESCR Committee recommended that Canada, in consultation with First Nations  including Aboriginal women's groups, adopt measures to combat discrimination against First Nations women and their children in matters relating to Indian status, band membership and matrimonial property. In particular, the Committee urged to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) which prevents First Nations people from filing complaints of discrimination before a human rights commission or tribunal. The ECSR Committee also urged the State party to amend the Indian Act of Canada to remove any residual discrimination against First Nations women and their children.

The submission of the Assembly of the First Nations to the ESCR Committee  devoted 11 out of 43 pages on "Article 3 Equal Rights of Men and Women".

On the surface, the dispute relates to Section 67 of the CHRA which provides that the CHRA does "not affect any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act." In other words, section 67 of the CHRA effectively excludes members of First Nations communities who fit within the definition of "Indian", as defined in the federal Indian Act and who live or work on an Indian reserve or Indian Act community, from filing complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in respect of any action arising from or pursuant to the Indian Act.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission in its report, "A Matter of Rights - Special Report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the Repeal of Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act" of 26 October 2005 recommended an immediate repeal of section 67 of the CHRA and develop an "interpretive provision" to guide the Commission and Tribunal in adjudicating complaints against First Nations governments, agencies and institutions through consultation with First Nations over an 18-30 month period.

At the heart of the dispute is membership to the first nations. Since the UN Human Rights Committee gave its opinion on Sandra Lovelace v. Canada case in 1977, Canada and the First Nations have been struggling to strike a balance to address this volatile issue.

Take Canada's vote against the Draft Declaration at the UN Human Rights Council in June 2006 and the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples to "determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions" under Article 33 of the Draft Declaration, striking a balance between individual and collective rights which have direct implications on the identity and membership to First Nations is akin to searching the Rossetta Stone. For Canada, it is more difficult than saying "no" at the Human Rights Council.