when you buy a stolen car, and the authorities track it down, what happens?

you have to give the car back to it's rightful owner. you are not compensated. you take the loss.

you don't have a "property right" to keep the stolen car. rather, the rightful owner has a right to recover their property. the ownership papers were transferred illegitimately, and you didn't due your due diligence in making sure the sale was legitimate. it's actually your fault.

you can try to sue the person that sold you the stolen car but it's ultimately the buyer's responsibility under canadian law to do their due diligence.

likewise, it may be the case that a lot of people in bc bought stolen land, but that doesn't change the fact that it's stolen, and that the sellers had no right to sell it. under canadian law, those purchase are illegitimate, and it's up to the buyer to take the loss, due to not doing their due diligence.

in this case, the people that bought stolen land may have a good legal case to sue the government to recover losses, but it doesn't alter the basic fact that the state had no right to sell land it doesn't own and that it's the rightful owners that have the legal rights, not the people that stole it.

if the conservative party of british columbia had any actual support for property rights, it would seek to compensate the indigenous groups for the massive amount of land that was stolen from them outright, not purchased or signed away in any sort of treaty process. 

i do not support property rights and do not want to confuse you. i am drawing attention to their hypocrisy. i do not support the idea of enforcing property rights, which are not consistent with indigenous culture, on the indigenous peoples of bc.

however, the conservative party position is not in support of property rights but in support of colonial land theft. it's the exact opposite of a support for property rights. they think they have some sort of right to steal land from the indigenous groups without compensation or consent, and they call that "property rights". but, as proudhon stated, property is indeed theft (or is impossible, as a more accurate application to indigenous land rights would assert. that is, the indigenous groups actually understood that property is impossible and actually lived that way.).

the conservative party and the ndp have the same political position on this issue, which reflects the reality that bc is outright stolen land. it's the courts that have stepped in and said "there's no legal basis of the fiefdoms here. there's no valid deed. there's no treaty. there's no sale. you just outright showed up and flat out stole it. that's not legal under canadian law, going back to the days of the roman empire. you have to come to some agreement with the descendants of the groups you stole the land from. you can't just carry on as though the outright theft of land is in any way legitimate; it's not. until you work out some agreement, the rightful owner is the family that the land was stolen from, not the government that stole it and took control of it without paying for it.".

it consequently doesn't really matter which party is in power because this is a legal issue about the absence of any valid ownership documents and not a political issue. the bc legislature has little power to fight the court rulings. it's not even really in their jurisdiction.

it does however expose a serious problem in the settler-colonial culture in bc. it's 2026, and bc seems to think it's 1763. a substantive number of british columbians don't see anything wrong with stealing land from indigenous groups, and even insist they have a right to do that, and call it property rights.

never forget that we live in the era of orwell.