On July 20, 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled unanimously in two controversial native logging disputes originating in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The two cases involved Mi'kmaq natives charged with illegally taking and selling timber logged from Crown land. The two men argued the taking and selling of the Crown timber was a treaty right and an aboriginal right.

The SCC disagreed. In fact, in the two 7-0 decisions, the court found the pre-confederation treaties only granted the Mi'kmaq the right to continue to trade in items traditionally traded at the time the treaties were signed. Furthermore, the court ruled there was no evidence to suggest the Mi'kmaq were logging 250 years ago when they signed the pre-confederation treaties in 1760 and 1761.

The ruling was a good day for the forest industry in the Maritimes. Had the court ruled in favour of the native loggers; the decision would have had a negative impact on the multi-billion dollar industry. This is because many of the forest companies which lease Crown lands may have had their leases revoked.

Nonetheless, any celebration that may have occurred in the forest sector as a result of the ruling was short-lived.

One day after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Mi'kmaq natives in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick did not have a treaty right or an aboriginal right to harvest Crown timber for commercial use; the SCC announced they will hear two New Brunswick appeals involving Mi'kmaq natives who harvested Crown timber for personal use.

The first case in 1999, involved Mi'kmaq Darrell Gray who was charged for illegally harvesting maple trees on Crown land. The second case, involved Dale Sappier who was also charged for harvesting Crown timber for personal use in 2001.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal upheld both lower court rulings acquitting the men accused. What makes these two cases unique is for the first time an appellant court ruled in favour of aboriginal rights to harvest Crown timber for personal use.

Unlike the recent SCC decision to rule against native commercial logging on Crown land without a proper licence, the two cases involving harvesting Crown timber for personal use may very well stand.

The top court has already ruled that natives have an aboriginal right - protected by the Constitution - to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes. Given the Mi'kmaq can prove they used wood products to make bows, baskets, canoes, and other tools when they signed the pre-confederation treaties; it is likely the SCC will rule harvesting timber for personal use is similar in nature to aboriginal fishing for personal use.

This may seem harmless at first blush, but when one considers the tensions on both coasts with regards to separate native and non-native fisheries - Burnt Church and the Fraser River - one has to wonder if similar tensions will be extended to the logging industry.

Furthermore, Crown land is owned by all - not just one group of Canadians. Should that mean because we all own a slice of Crown land we should all have the right to harvest timber for personal use

Treating citizens differently based on ethnic lines has only brought tension to Canada's fishing industry; expansion of this two-tiered treatment will only bring tension to other industries. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation believes all Canadians should be equal before and under the law. Let's hope the Supreme Court of Canada will agree.