How can one resolve a conflict of interest without

"How can one resolve a conflict of interest without creating a conflict?"
(A dialogue with a reader-philosopher: Tony Senatore, USA)

Tony Senatore, a reader of mine from the USA, posed a question worthy of Harvard. He struck right at the heart of my conceptual framework—and that is a good thing. It means my essay "Ward No. 6"(http://proza.ru/addrec.html?2026/10/18/350) is being read not merely as a polemical tract, but as a theory of the state:

"I have a fundamental question about your proposal to transform Crown Land into Community Land. Are you ultimately arguing that we must change who legally owns the land, or who has the authority to decide how it is used? Can your vision of Treaty Federalism be achieved while preserving existing private property rights, or does it require a fundamental restructuring of Canada’s entire system of land ownership?
I ask because I believe we have to distinguish between historical claims to territory, the political rights of a people, and the individual property rights of the people who live there today. These are related questions, but they are not interchangeable.
The Israel-Palestine conflict illustrates this distinction. One can recognize the national aspirations and historical connections of both peoples while still insisting that the private property rights of individual Israelis and Palestinians matter. A historical claim to a territory does not, by itself, resolve who owns a particular home, farm, or parcel of land today. Nor should the rights of an individual be casually dismissed in the name of a broader historical or political claim.
I think the same questions must be addressed in your proposal. How do we recognize Indigenous historical claims, treaty obligations, and the right to self-government without treating existing private property rights as secondary or assuming that a change in political authority automatically determines ownership?
I am not dismissing the historical injustices you raise. I am asking what principles would govern the transition from historical grievance to a just and workable system today. Unless your proposal answers that question clearly, I think it remains a political vision rather than a practical framework for reform."

My response:

Tony, thank you. This is the exact question my whole Palata No.6 is trying to answer. You are right — we must separate three things that Ottawa deliberately mixes.

Let me be precise, as a jurist:

Dominium, Possessio, Imperium — three rights Rome already distinguished.

1. Dominium — absolute ownership in Roman law: usus + fructus + abusus. The right to use the thing, to take its fruits (rent, crops), and to alienate it — to sell, gift, or destroy. Who has it in Canada today? Crown in Right of Province. 89% of Canada. You do NOT have it. Your land title says "granted by Crown." You hold tenure, not Dominium. You have no abusus without Crown permission — that's why there is no allodial title in Canada, unlike in the US.

2. Possessio / Fee Simple — factual possession and private use of a parcel. Your house in Victoria, my friend's farm near Red Deer, an Israeli apartment in Tel Aviv, a Palestinian house in Hebron. This is what Land Title registers. In Canada it is held as fee simple tenure from Crown, not as Dominium.

3. Imperium / Jurisdictio — sovereign power to command and to judge. In modern terms: who has authority to decide zoning, resource rent, veto on a pipeline, taxation, and to enforce it. Today — also Crown (federal and provincial).

My proposal does NOT touch Possessio. It strengthens it.

Today: Dominium = Crown. Imperium = Crown. Possessio = you, as tenant of Crown.
Proposed: Dominium = Community Land Trust (the Table, given by Creator / Tengri). Imperium = Shared Treaty Council of 5 peoples — Anglo-Canada, Quebec, West, Indigenous Nations, and New Canada — sitting at that Table. Possessio = you, as owner under Trust, with full abusus. Your private title goes from tenured to allodial.
You don't lose your house. You finally gain what Romans called abusus.

Your Israel-Palestine analogy is perfect, and it proves my point.

You are absolutely right: a historical claim of Jews to Judea or Palestinians to Filastin does NOT answer who owns a specific house in Jaffa today. If we confuse those levels, we get ethnic cleansing.

Canada confuses them now. Ottawa says: "We recognize historical Indigenous title." Then it says: "Therefore we must consult indefinitely and no one can build." It uses historical title to cloud your Possessio (farmer can't get a mortgage) and block local Imperium (city can't zone), while keeping Dominium for itself as Crown Land.

I propose the opposite:

a) Historical claim (Treaty Rights Overlay ;80% of Alberta, 300% overlapping memory in BC) — we recognize it not as ownership of your house, but as a lien on Crown's Dominium, not on your Possessio. The debt is owed by Crown, not by you. If Treaty 6 was breached — and it was, school, rations, land — Crown pays from resource rent, not by taking your farm.

b) Political rights (self-government) — we recognize as share in Imperium, not as ownership of your lot. That is Treaty Federalism: West gets 50% resource rent autonomy, Quebec gets language and court autonomy, First Nations get real co-decision veto on Crown projects on Crown land, not veto on your backyard.

c) Individual property rights — we make them stronger. In my Vancouver Salish Sea Trust model: your house is 100% yours, fee simple becomes allodial under Trust. The land under it is in Trust, you pay small ground rent to Trust (which funds schools and rivers), not property tax to Crown. You can sell, inherit, mortgage — just like now, but title is clean, without the 300% shadow.

How would transition work? Four principles to move from grievance to workable system:

1. Grandfather Possessio. All existing private titles (11% of Canada) are confirmed as absolute and allodial. No expropriation. This is non-negotiable for any just system.

2. Convert Crown Dominium to Community Trusts. 94% of BC, ;60% of Alberta that is Provincial Crown — not sold to private interests, but transferred to regional Community Land Trusts. Crown Land becomes Community Land. Trust charter: revenue 50% to province, 25% to First Nations trusts for treaty obligations, 25% to local stewardship (fire, salmon restoration).

3. Separate Imperium. Resource projects require consent of Trust board where First Nations are co-trustees, not mere consultees. That's Mikisew Cree (2005) taken seriously.

4. Tengri principle. Land itself is not a 5th nation. It is the Table, given by Creator. Nations are guests at the Table. We stop asking "who owns the Table?" and start asking "what are the rules at the Table?"

Can this be done while preserving private property? Yes — it is the only way to preserve it. Today private property in Canada is legally fragile: you are tenant of Crown, and Crown's title is encumbered by unresolved Aboriginal title (Tsilhqot'in 2014). Until Crown's debt is settled, your title is cloudy. My proposal cleans the cloud above you, not below.

Otherwise, Tony, we keep what we have: Crown says "we own everything, but we owe everything to everyone," and therefore no one can build, no one is secure, lawyers are paid forever — exactly the 300% map.

Political vision vs practical framework? You are right — until we write Trust deeds, it is vision. My next step is drafting one — for Saanich, as a test case. Dominium = Saanich Community Trust, Imperium = Saanich + WSANEC Nations Council, Possessio = homeowners remain owners.

Would you be willing to review that deed when drafted?

Vladimir Angelblazer,
2026-10-18

DRAFT CONCEPT 1.0 — SAANICH COMMUNITY LAND TRUST (SCLT)
A FANTASY Test Case for Treaty Federalism: From Crown Land to Community Land

Preamble: The Table, not the Fifth Guest

We, residents of Saanich municipality, recognize that this land is WSANEC traditional territory, never ceded by treaty, now classified as 60%+ Crown and municipal land. The current system creates 300% conflict: Crown claims Dominium, City claims Imperium, WSANEC claims historical Title, and homeowners hold cloudy Possessio.

We propose to stop asking "who owns the Table?" and define rules at the Table.

Article 1 — Three Layers

1.1 Dominium — transferred.
All Provincial Crown land, municipal reserve land, and unroaded rights-of-way within District of Saanich Peninsula boundaries are transferred from Crown in Right of BC to Saanich Community Land Trust (SCLT), a non-profit corporation sole, held in perpetuity. SCLT holds land as steward, not as owner for sale. (Principle of Tengri: land belongs to Creator, humans hold yarlyk (paitza) to manage while serving).

1.2 Possessio — grandfathered and strengthened.
All existing private fee simple titles (homes, farms, businesses — the 11%) are confirmed as absolute and allodial under Trust. No expropriation. No loss. On transfer to Trust, fee simple becomes allodial fee under Trust. Owner gains full abusus. Owner may sell, mortgage, inherit freely. Ground lease is converted to one-time stewardship fee: 0.5% of assessed land value per year to Trust, replacing portion of property tax to Crown. House itself — 100% private.

1.3 Imperium — shared.
Jurisdiction over Trust lands is exercised by Joint Stewardship Council:

3 seats — District of Saanich / Central Saanich / North Saanich (elected)
3 seats — WSANEC Leadership Council (Tsartlip, Tsawout, Tseycum, Pauquachin)
1 seat — Saanich Peninsula Residents Assembly (farmers, homeowners, New Canada)
1 seat — Independent Ecologist (salmon, fire)
Decisions on zoning, resource use, development on Trust land require double majority: majority of municipal seats + majority of WSANEC seats. No project passes without both.

Article 2 — Revenue (Fruits — fructus)

All fructus from Trust lands — commercial leases, gravel, timber, carbon credits, ground rent — distributed:

50% — to municipalities for infrastructure / schools
25% — to WSANEC Nation Trust — to settle historical grievance, fund language, housing on reserve
25% — to Local Stewardship Fund — fire mitigation, salmon restoration in Tod Inlet, farmland protection
No revenue goes to Ottawa or Victoria as Crown rent. This is the lien on Crown's Dominium being paid.

Article 3 — What changes for a homeowner in Saanich?

Nothing negative. Example:

You own house at 1234 Wain Rd. Today deed: "granted by Crown in Right of BC, subject to Crown encumbrances." Clouded by unresolved Aboriginal title (Tsilhqot'in).
After: deed: "held allodially under Saanich Community Land Trust, subject to Trust charter." Clean title, protected from Crown expropriation, protected from 300% claim, mortgageable at same bank. You pay $2,400/year ground rent to Trust instead of $2,400 extra property tax to Province. Trust uses it to clear Tod Creek.
Article 4 — Treaty Federalism in miniature

(This is our 5 peoples formula applied locally):

Anglo-Canada — municipal seats
Indigenous Nations — WSANEC seats
West (resource) — local farmers / stewardship seat
New Canada — Residents Assembly
Quebec principle — respected by WSANEC language rights in Trust schools
Land is not 5th nation. Land is the Table.

Article 5 — Next step

We do not need BC Legislature to start. Under BC Land Title Act and Society Act, municipality can create Community Land Trust and transfer municipal lands. Provincial Crown land transfer requires Order in Council under Land Act s.45 — political decision, but possible as pilot under DRIPA (Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, BC 2019).

We ask:

District of Saanich to designate 2 parcels (e.g., former gravel pit + municipal woodlot) as pilot Trust lands.
WSANEC to appoint 3 interim trustees.
Residents to elect 1 trustee.
Draft Trust deed for 12-month public consultation.