Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada has said, protects existing Aboriginal and treaty rights from unjustified infringement at the hands of federal and provincial legislatures and governments. To give meaningful effect to section 35’s protection, we need, therefore, to understand what counts as infringement of such rights and why. The Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence to date on this question, alas, disappoints; it does not withstand close critical scrutiny. This article calls attention to several shortcomings and inconsistencies in that jurisprudence and proposes for initial consideration a more inclusive approach to infringement identification, one that draws a sharper distinction between the infringement and justification inquiries. Adoption of such an approach, however, could have unwelcome substitution effects, prompting cautious courts to be more selective when asked to authenticate future claims of Aboriginal right, more penurious when construing the constitutionally protected scope of particular treaty or Aboriginal rights and/or more generous to governments during the justification inquiry. If the goal is to optimize the protection that Canadian constitutional law affords to treaty and Aboriginal rights, we shall need to be mindful of the interdependence among the authentication, infringement, and justification inquiries, and we shall need to understand much more clearly than we currently do just where the outer limits are beyond which mainstream Canadian law cannot, or will not, countenance Indigenous ways and why.

中文翻译：

---

关于违反：识别对第 35 条权利的侵犯

加拿大最高法院表示，1982 年宪法法案第 35 条保护现有的原住民和条约权利免受联邦和省级立法机构和政府的不正当侵犯。因此，为了对第 35 条的保护产生有意义的影响，我们需要了解什么是对此类权利的侵犯以及为什么。迄今为止，最高法院自己在这个问题上的判例令人失望；它经不起严格的严格审查。本文提请注意该判例中的几个缺陷和不一致之处，并提出一种更具包容性的侵权识别方法，以更清晰地区分侵权和正当性调查，以供初步考虑。然而，采用这种方法可能会产生不受欢迎的替代效果，促使谨慎的法院在被要求验证土著权利的未来主张时更具选择性，在解释特定条约或土著权利的宪法保护范围时更加谨慎和/或在正当性调查期间对政府更加慷慨。如果目标是优化加拿大宪法对条约和原住民权利的保护，我们需要注意认证、侵权和正当性调查之间的相互依存关系，我们需要比现在更清楚地理解只做加拿大主流法律不能或不会支持土著方式的外部限制以及原因所在。在解释特定条约或土著权利的宪法保护范围时更加吝啬和/或在正当性调查期间对政府更加慷慨。如果目标是优化加拿大宪法对条约和原住民权利的保护，我们需要注意认证、侵权和正当性调查之间的相互依存关系，我们需要比现在更清楚地理解只做加拿大主流法律不能或不会支持土著方式的外部限制以及原因所在。在解释特定条约或土著权利的宪法保护范围时更加吝啬和/或在正当性调查期间对政府更加慷慨。如果目标是优化加拿大宪法对条约和原住民权利的保护，我们需要注意认证、侵权和正当性调查之间的相互依存关系，我们需要比现在更清楚地理解只做加拿大主流法律不能或不会支持土著方式的外部限制以及原因所在。