as referring to rights that were not "extinguished" prior to the introduction of the 1982 Constitution. They rejected the alternate "frozen" interpretation referring to rights that were being exercised in 1982. As long as the right had not been extinguished, the manner in which the right happened to have been regulated prior to 1982. The existing right is not to be narrowed in interpretation based on regulation. Based on historical records of the Musqueam fishing practices over the centuries and into colonial time, the Court found that the band had a clear right to fish for food. Extinguishment of rights can occur only through an act that showed "clear and plain intention" on the government to deny those rights. Here, the Court found that the Crown was not able to prove that the right to fish for food were extinguished prior to 1982. The licensing scheme was merely a means of regulating the fisheries, not removing the underlying right, and no historical government policy towards fishing rights amounted to a clear intention to extinguish. "Recognized and Affirmed" The words "recognized and affirmed" incorporate the government's fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal people, which requires it to exercise restraint when applying its powers in interference with Aboriginal rights. It further suggests that Aboriginal rights are not absolute and can be encroached upon given sufficient reason. Justification In order to justify a prima facie infringement, the government needs to demonstrate the following (at p 1119): a valid legislative objective (including conservation, protection, and management, but not including a general "public interest" purpose) the infringement is minimally impairing that the aboriginal group in question has been consulted that there has been compensation, in the case of expropriation Aftermath After the Sparrow case, federal or provincial legislation may limit Aboriginal rights only if it has given them appropriate priority because Aboriginal rights have a different nature from other non-Aboriginal rights. The "Sparrow test" has been used by many experts as a way of measuring how much Canadian legislation can limit Aboriginal rights. Typical cases of inappropriate priority include distributing hunting licences by lottery. See also The Canadian Crown and First Nations, Inuit and Métis Canadian Aboriginal case law Numbered Treaties Indian Act Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982 Indian Health Transfer Policy (Canada) Supreme Court of Canada Calder v British Columbia (AG) (1971) Guerin v The Queen (1984) Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997) Tsilhqot'in