There has been posting to public lists and Facebook of a variety of differing wordings suggested for C-560. I suggest that public discussions of differing wording simply provides ammunition to the other side and reduces our recruitment of riding ambassadors to lobby MPs for support for our reform bill.

CEPC understands these concerns regarding the wording of C-560. I have invited some of those who have presented the clearest alternate wordings to phone me to discuss. There may be opportunities to make amendments during the process, but I want to ensure that the movement does not propose differing, conflicting wording that simply reduces the chances that any reasonable bill will pass.

Most of my efforts are going to our existing list of riding ambassadors and lobbying for support for MP Vellacott and voting support from MPs. It has been my experience that public lists discussions on wording are divisive and politically set us back rather than advance the cause.

There have been numerous and repeated offers for organizations and individuals to join with CEPC as advocates and there have been numerous discussions at the CEPC Board level (and with individuals) on a non-public basis.

Let us remember that the public, adversarial forums of family court make problems worse and that we are seeking a non-adversarial, conflict resolution alternative that is respectful and incentivizes people to solve their own problems. In my opinion, we should model this alternative in our conflict resolution within the movement.

Glenn in Ottawa