K’ómoks First Nation Responds to Pierre Poilievre’s Claims on Treaty Ratification
Dispute centres on property rights, UNDRIP, and the scope of treaty impacts
The K’ómoks First Nation has issued a public response to comments from Pierre Poilievre, leader of the federal Conservative Party, regarding the pending ratification of the K’ómoks First Nation treaty. The treaty, negotiated among the K’ómoks First Nation, Canada, and British Columbia, was passed in the B.C. Legislature earlier in 2026 and is scheduled for a ratification vote in the Canadian Parliament in 2027.
Pierre Poilievre has stated that the treaty fails to “explicitly and clearly protect property rights” and has called for a pause in its ratification process. Poilievre’s opposition has been described as staunch, and he has encouraged caucus members to reject the agreement. During a press conference in Vancouver on June 20, joined by North Island–Powell River MP Aaron Gunn, Poilievre contended that the agreement’s reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as an authoritative source for interpretations would elevate UNDRIP from a policy commitment to a legally binding guideline. According to Poilievre, this change would threaten both private property and resource projects, stating, “Carney Liberals are now signing agreements that further risk your home and your properties. Now the Liberals are set to ratify a new treaty. The K’ómoks First Nation and the B.C. government have signed this treaty, which says that UNDRIP is the authority’s source of all its interpretations. By implementing an agreement that appeals to UNDRIP as the authoritative source, the Carney Liberals would elevate UNDRIP from a policy commitment to a legally binding guideline, threatening your home and threatening resource projects.”
Chief Nicole Rempel of the K’ómoks First Nation responded to Poilievre’s statements in a public Facebook post, characterizing his claims as bold and false. Rempel wrote, “While it is difficult to take criticism seriously when it is based on claims that are simply not found anywhere in the treaty, it is important to address those mistruths.” She further stated, “PP (Pierre Poilievre) is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts. Our treaty does not impact the private property rights of British Columbians. Our treaty deals with Crown land.”
Chief Rempel also invited Poilievre to meet with her and the treaty negotiation team to discuss the treaty’s contents directly. She concluded her remarks by criticizing the use of the treaty for political purposes, stating, “Using our Treaty to manipulate the public and wilfully spread fear rather than facts for political gain is gross and disappointing, yet somehow not surprising.”
The treaty in question is part of a broader move in British Columbia to resolve outstanding land claims and establish new relationships between Indigenous nations and the Crown. The agreement was negotiated in the context of both provincial and federal commitments to implement UNDRIP, which sets out minimum standards for the survival, dignity, and well-being of Indigenous peoples worldwide. In B.C., UNDRIP was adopted as a framework for legislation in 2019, and its principles have since informed government negotiations with First Nations.
Poilievre’s concerns reflect a wider debate regarding the legal implications of referencing UNDRIP in Canadian treaties and legislation, particularly the extent to which it may affect property rights, resource development, and the legal certainty of land holdings. The Conservative Party has argued that elevating UNDRIP to a legally binding authority could introduce new obligations and risks for non-Indigenous property owners and industries.
Chief Rempel and the K’ómoks First Nation maintain that the treaty addresses only Crown land, not private property held by individuals or corporations. This distinction is central to their rebuttal of Poilievre’s claims, as they argue that private property rights are not diminished or altered by the treaty’s provisions. The K’ómoks leadership has indicated a willingness to engage in dialogue to clarify these aspects and counter what they view as misinformation.
The broader legal context includes recent high-profile cases concerning Aboriginal title in British Columbia. In March, the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada case concluded after a 513-day trial, with the court declaring that fee simple interests issued by the province were invalid and constituted an unjustifiable infringement on the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title. The decision specified that existing private residential and commercial properties in the area were unaffected, with impacts limited to public lands. Both the provincial and federal governments are appealing the ruling.
These developments have contributed to ongoing legal and political debates about the reconciliation of Aboriginal title, private property rights, and the implementation of UNDRIP in Canadian law. The outcomes of these cases and treaty negotiations are seen as significant for future land claims and the evolving relationship between Indigenous nations and the Crown.
The K’ómoks treaty’s passage through the B.C. Legislature and its pending ratification in Parliament marks a critical step in the treaty process. Its approval would formalize agreements regarding land, governance, and resource management between the K’ómoks First Nation, British Columbia, and Canada. Supporters argue that such treaties provide clarity and certainty for all parties, while opponents question the broader implications for existing legal frameworks and economic development.
The discourse surrounding the K’ómoks treaty has also intersected with calls from other Indigenous organizations. For instance, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has called for pauses on legislation to adopt major treaties, seeking more thorough consultation and careful consideration of long-term impacts.
As the ratification vote approaches in Parliament, the debate reflects broader national questions about Indigenous rights, Crown–Indigenous relations, and the legal status of international declarations such as UNDRIP within Canadian law. The process and its outcomes are being closely watched by Indigenous nations, political parties, industry stakeholders, and the public.