35 (Paper presented to the Negotiating the Future Conference, Calgary, November 14-16, 2001) [unpublished]. 54 Alberta judges studiously avoid calling their process “mediatio n” because of s. 57  of the federal Judges Act. 55 JDR practices are now the subject of much discussion among judges. At a recent judicial education session, two judges who hold very different views on the appropriateness of conducting “binding  JDRs” – i.e., JDRs which bind the parties to the opinion expressed by the judge in the JDR – participated in what was billed as “The Great Debate.” A  lively discussion followed, with a wide range of views being expressed. No common conclusion was reached but the issues are now out in the open whereas previously individual judges seemed to know little about the practices adopted by other judges. 56 Whereas in Alberta this appears to be a sequential development, in other jurisdictions it may have developed as the norm, without distinction between settlement facilitation and litigation management. As long as twenty years ago, Judith Resnick reached the conclusion that judges had become “m ediators, negotiators, and planners – as well as adjudicators: Judith Resnick, ?? at 379. 57 Landerkin & Pirie, at 271. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid., at 276. According to Landerkin and Pirie The idea that JDR can include settlement initiatives involving a judge during trial is supportable. If JDR’s ideology is essentially about promoting speedy and inexpensive “justice,” the responsibilities of a judge sitting in the trial process could include facilitating appropriate settlement discussions without jeopardizing litigation rights. Disputants often settle during trial and careful help from the judge would appear possible without the judge relinquishing the ability to still be an adjudicator if necessary. The closer JDR activities come to the adjudicative function, the more JDR can begin to resemble elements of an inquisitorial system. Indeed, this may be the direction that JDR will eventually go. 61 62 Landerkin & Pirie, at 261. 63 Landerkin & Pirie, ibid., caution that this need not be “ muscle mediation” where  a judge unfairly pressures parties to settle, give up rights, or grudgingly compromise. 64 Ibid. at 264, citing McIvaine, “The Value of Effective Pre- Trial” (1961), 28 F.R.D . 162.