One of its general objects is to preserve Indian reservations and benefits to Indians and to no one else. I would go so far as to state that these rights are intended to be confined to full- blooded Indians. This proud and dignified race is thus given some opportunity to retain its identity and culture in the face of the onslaught by an alien society on its way of life. The fact that the protest procedure is available with respect to pater- nity and not with respect to maternity is simply recognition of the facts of life. Maternity is always identifiable.
Paternity always has a degree of uncertainty, even for legitimate issue.
221 ferences between men and women. These differences as they affect children have been recognized through the centuries by the common law and in recent years by child welfare legisla- tion in all the Provinces of Canada. In the normal course of events, when a non-Indian mother bore an illegitimate child, the question of the registration of that child under the Indian Act would not arise. Accordingly, no provision was made in the Act for the protesting of such registration. I, therefore, find that the infant, David Froman, is not en- titled to have his name included in the Indian Register under the provisions of the Indian Act , because his father was not an Indian.