HISTORY
A Brief History of Restorative Justice in NL
Restorative Justice in Newfoundland and Labrador:
Ongoing Effort Amidst Challenges
dorothy vaandering | Catherine Ann Kelly
Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) has long been interested in and involved in restorative justice. Along with committed, ongoing engagement with restorative justice principles and practices in Indigenous communities for generations, various non-Indigenous initiatives have occurred since the 1980’s. However, limited, previous government initiatives have not taken hold, and to date, there are no specific restorative justice legislation or policies in government. The current administration is signaling a shift with some support for community organizations engaged with restorative justice and an emerging provincial program, Community Justice Connect. The reasons for this are unclear. What follows is an overview of how the province’s history, geography, population distribution, and economy may have contributed to the inconsistency in understanding restorative justice and the availability of restorative justice services over the years. Past initiatives are then explained. Finally, recently renewed efforts in the areas of education, community, human rights, and the judiciary are described, illustrating a more cohesive engagement with restorative justice that involves collaborative efforts between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.
1. Introduction
Newfoundland and Labrador’s (NL) historic and contemporary experience with restorative justice is best understood when considered from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives. Indigenous peoples have engaged with principles and practices that are similar to what is now called restorative justice for centuries, while non-Indigenous Western initiatives began to take shape in the early 1980s. Each iteration has occurred independently within a local/regional context with differing degrees of success and sustainability. NL’s political and social history influences this reality. Looking ahead, consistency and growth will require conscious attention to the population’s varied histories of harm related to colonization, racism, and religious abuse.
NL comprises two parts: Newfoundland, the island, with approximately 506,000 people, and Labrador, the mainland, with approximately 32,000 people (Statistics Canada, Table 17-10-0009-01). The province consists of many small coastal communities and a smaller number of inland communities. NL has one city of over 100 000 people (St. John’s 112,000), and six areas (two cities and four towns) with populations between 10 000 and 30 000. Its vast land area (400,000 km2) and small population, make it challenging for the government to provide equitable services for its citizens.
​
The first European contact in North America that opened the way to colonial influence occurred in 1497 with the arrival of Jaques Cartier on the east coast of the island of Newfoundland. By 1763, the island and the mainland portion of Labrador were governed by Britain. In 1824, it became an official British colony, until shortly after WWI during which NL substantially supported allied
forces suffering great loss and debt that Britain would not forgive. To provide stability, Britain reinstated more direct governance and appointed a Commission of Government. This continued until after WWII when, through a referendum vote, NL became the 10th province of Canada. Under British rule, immigration of Irish, Scottish, and British gradually increased while Mi’kmaq, Beothuk, Innu, and Inuit Peoples were considered irrelevant and ignored in any decision-making. The horrific consequences of colonization embedded themselves in provincial identity. When NL joined Confederation in 1949, 82 years after Canada's establishment, the premier explicitly excluded Indigenous peoples from the terms of the union by absorbing all people in the province into general citizenship. By declaring the province had no Indigenous peoples, these populations were left to suffer the devastation of resettlement and land theft without compensation that other Indigenous populations in Canada received. In 2023, this injustice against Indigenous nations has not yet been acknowledged or rectified officially. However, through their own advocacy, each Indigenous nation has been recognized and is currently engaged in various negotiations with federal and provincial authorities regarding land claims and self-government.
​
Religion played a significant role in the settlement of NL, with Catholicism exerting particular influence, followed by Anglicanism (Rollman, 1999). Provincial leaders were often prominent Catholics or Anglicans, and attitudes of superiority perpetuated by the Doctrine of Discovery were significant. Though religious commitment came with a substantial attitude of charity and care, it also embodied and entrenched hierarchical structures and punitive and adversarial systems. Denominational schooling began with settlement and continued in the province until 1997. Notably, the Catholic-run Mt. Cashel orphanage/school in St. John’s operated from 1898 to 1989 and became infamous in the late 1980s for disclosures of sexual and physical abuse. Research regarding the five other residential schools in the province similarly exposed the unconscionable treatment of students (Proctor, 2020). Reports of mistreatment of children, youth, and adults in other state, church, and academic institutions remain common to the time of this writing. As a result, the cultural milieu towards leadership, even in 2023, reverberates with mistrust (Bowman, 2016; Proctor, 2020; McKinnley, 2021).
​
This is the context within which efforts to implement and sustain restorative justice occur in NL. What follows is a brief description of how Indigenous justice is understood, how Indigenous communities were impacted by Western systems, and how two early non-Indigenous initiatives were making efforts at making systemic change.
2. History and Development
2.1 Indigenous Justice over the centuries
Indigenous First Nations in NL include Beothuk and Mi’kmaq on the island (Newfoundland ) and Innu First Nation and Inuit on the mainland (Labrador). Recent research has refuted inaccurate historical records that suggest the Beothuk are extinct (Aylward, 2014). Each Nation had its own system of government and justice prior to contact with settlers, with elements of these systems still remaining today as recorded in recently published literature (Joe & O’Neill, 2021; White, 2023, Penashue, 2019).
​
Indigenous justice differs from Western justice in that it does not seek a universal approach across the various nations (Youngblood Henderson & McCaslin, 2005:5). However, the approaches all share a common objective for healing and reconnection. The Mi’kmaq Nation comprises two federally recognized bands, Miawpukek and Qalipu, along with various distinct Mi’kmaq communities throughout the province, while the Innu Nation has two distinct communities in Labrador. Traditionally, each community approaches justice relationally, guided by elders, various ceremonies, and community Circles. The Inuit in Nunatsiavut and NunatuKavut are currently exploring and reconnecting with traditional practices. Past practices included Elders addressing harm through conversations with the person responsible. If there was insufficient change, the community was informed, and the individuals affected could decide on the consequences. This approach was necessary as the person’s family and community would suffer consequences if the harm was not addressed such as unsuccessful hunts and damaging weather.
​
For a fuller understanding, it is critical for settlers and restorative justice practitioners to be very mindful of perpetuating colonial harm through an assumed understanding of these practices by framing Indigenous as a monolith. At a minimum, reading books by Indigenous authors to grasp the differences and similarities in perspectives of Indigenous justice through Indigenous voices, is necessary. Settlers and restorative justice practitioners need to be very mindful of perpetuating colonial harm by framing Indigenous as a monolith.
2.2 The impact of Western justice systems in NL on Indigenous Nations
The impact of Western justice systems on Indigenous communities in NL is complex and has intensified relatively recently. For generations, non-Indigenous settlement in the province occurred primarily along coastlines, as boats were the main mode of travel. In 1898, a rail line across the island was completed, which allowed for some access to Indigenous communities. However, they remained relatively remote until 1969, when the railway was discontinued, and a series of roads became the primary avenue for traversing the island. Travel on land opened Indigenous communities to more frequent access to non-Indigenous individuals and institutions. As a result, RCMP, fishing, hunting, wildlife, and forestry officers, as well as other social service agencies were now able to enforce regulations. These federal/provincial regulatory powers led to the charge and arrest of the Mi’kmaq on the island, and the Innu and Inuit on the mainland for living off the land, practices that had been integral to their way of life for centuries (White, 2021; Penashue, 2019). They were processed through a court system where neither group understood the other’s cultural ways. Many men and women ended up in prison or had their gear confiscated, and mothers, grandmothers, Elders, and children had no food security. Hunger and poverty were rampant. Army bases near Stephenville and Goose Bay resulted in an influx of men living close to Indigenous communities. Rape of women and children was common. Many children were removed from their homes by social services. Communities were decimated (White, 2023; Penashue, 2019).
Indigenous peoples developed a fear of law enforcement, courts, and prison while their Indigenous justice systems were no longer viable or available. Their suggestions for using the different approaches in conjunction were rejected.
​
Since the 1990s, leaders from the Mi’kmaq communities of Miawpukek First Nation and Flat Bay Band in Newfoundland, as well as Innu communities of Sheshatshui and Natuashish in Labrador have tried to collaborate with non-Indigenous judges and lawyers to help their people avoid the harmful cycles perpetuated by incarceration. Despite each community having alternative approaches, the Western legal system still dominates and takes precedence (Youngblood Henderson & McCaslin, 2005; personal communication with various Indigenous Leaders).
2.3 Non-Indigenous Restorative Justice Initiatives
2.3.1 Family Group Decision-Making Project
From 1992 to 1999, Joan Pennell and Gale Burford, two social work professors at Memorial University, conducted innovative research in child welfare and domestic violence. Rather than social agencies making decisions for families, a restorative justice approach that empowers families to decide about the needs of their children or young relatives called Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) was introduced. FGDM recognizes that those most closely connected to the family are best able to support them through difficult times. Public and community agencies are significant because they are available for support when needed. FGDM relies on the strengths and wishes of the family; it is not a mediation program or a family reunification program (Pennell & Burford, 2000).
​
This project was not only provincially unique but was groundbreaking internationally as evidenced by its prominence in social work literature. Many national, provincial, community and Indigenous partners contributed to the $831,135 of funding that supported this initiative. The work was conducted in three distinct communities–urban (St. John’s), rural (Port aux Port Peninsula), and Inuit remote (Nain). Its primary purpose was to test “if the FGDM model could eliminate or reduce violence against child and adult family members and to promote their well-being” (Pennell & Burford, 2000: 137). The results were significant, with participants indicating increased family unity, increased safety, reduced maltreatment, and declining abuse of mothers/wives. It also recognized the potential for change in how service providers and community members responded to family crises which continues to this day (2000: 153; Allan, et al 2020).
2.3.1 Community Mediation Services
Community Mediation Services (CMS), a non-profit organization, served NL from 1995-2010. It was initiated in October 1994 by Marvin McNutt, Ken Templeton, Carolyn Hapgood, Jim McSheffrey, Addison Klassen, Gerta Klassen, John Scolville, and Joan Atkinson to create a Victim Offender Mediation (VOM) Program for approval under Section 717 of the Criminal Code (CCC) in NL. As an incorporated entity, it became widely supported by the Mennonite Central Committee and a broad range of qualified and committed individuals from the government, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the RCMP, all levels of the courts, the university, and the general public. With the guidance of Winnipeg’s Community Mediation Services organization, NL began to train facilitators, and within a few years, it had a roster of 24 registered facilitators who had completed 60 hours of extensive training. Its primary roles included: conflict resolution and restorative justice processes with individuals and groups, knowledge and skill development within the organization and community, and promoting systems change through conflict transformation and restorative justice. It served young people and adults in a wide range of conflict situations including disputes with neighbours, colleagues, and family members. Referrals for non-criminal issues came through self-referrals and from community stakeholders; criminal concerns were referred by the Police, Victim Services, Probation, Corrections, and members of the general public who wanted restorative justice applied. A research study (Collins, 1996) commissioned by CMS compared the cost of processing individuals in the present provincial criminal justice system to that of Community Mediation Services Inc. The study revealed that CMS had nine measures of notable advantage over the provincial system, including in-session time, number of appearances, expediency, out-of-session time, in-session cost, out-of-session cost, total cost, the total time for all involved, and time to fulfill agreed upon conditions. In 1999, CMS conducted a three-month pilot project with enthusiastic support from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, which saw 73 cases involving a wide range of police called-in disturbances that were successfully addressed outside of court. Despite this evidence, though it was anticipated that restorative justice cases would increase and be the main work of CMS, growth did not materialize as anticipated as insufficient funding and lack of structural support from the NL Department of Justice dwindled for reasons not clearly identified. In response, CMS began to focus on promoting restorative justice through community education, and peer mediation in schools.
​
From late 2000 until 2002, CMS went dormant, until renewed funding from MCC allowed CMS to hire a full-time executive director, Scott Morton-Ninomiya. From 2002-2007, CMS increased its advocacy in government, and in 2007, the executive director became the adult justice manager/restorative justice coordinator in the Department of Justice. Volunteer personnel signed up for CMS, and with official representation in government, the hope and potential were high for incorporating restorative justice possibilities in the judicial context as based on the Winnipeg Mediation Services model. However, after the retirement of critical advocates within the government, Department of Justice support ended, and the restorative justice co-ordinator position was eliminated in January 2010. After this, CMS could not sustain its motivation or funding, and the organization folded. NL remains one of the few provinces in Canada to not have an approved VOM mediation program under 717 of the CCC. Judges, corrections personnel, victim’s services advocates, as well as prosecutors and defense counsel, raise concerns publicly that this leaves NL operating in an antiquated system of justice that the mainland Canadian provincial standards have long surpassed.
3. Regulatory and Legal Framework
While community-based justice NGOs and Indigenous groups have done pockets of work over time, the implementation of restorative justice in the criminal justice system has fluctuated from being active and inactive between the adult and youth justice systems in NL.
​
The Department of Justice and Public Safety (JPS) has sole responsibility for adult justice. In 2007-2010 (see above), it worked to develop an adult restorative justice program. Before it could be fully planned it was halted. In 2018, the province began operating various therapeutic courts–drug treatment court, mental health court, family violence intervention court. In 2019, a regional adult diversion program was initiated in Stephenville and Corner Brook. Designed as an access-to-justice pilot program, its intention was to address the long wait times for cases to be heard in court by diverting them to informal proceedings. JPS acknowledges its commitment to adopting restorative justice principles through these developments (NL Government, 2019). However, beyond this, specific restorative justice practices or programs are not documented or currently available.
​
The Departments of Children Seniors and Social Development (CSSD) and JPS share the responsibility for administering NL’s Youth Justice System. CSSD is responsible for Extrajudicial Sanctions Programs, community-based sentences, and court-ordered services including open custody. The arrival of the Youth Criminal Justice Act in 2003, brought significant change. An alternative measures program for youth is being administered by the Coalition for Youth Justice Committee and funded by RCMP, RNC, Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development (CSSD), and Crown Attorney's Office. It coordinates, trains, and manages twenty youth justice committees in NL.
​
Sporadic engagement with restorative justice has not yet led to specific legislation in NL though some indicate that alternative dispute resolution and therapeutic courts have built options for it into existing legislation. Provincial examples include: in 1998, the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (1998) was amended to allow social workers to use alternative dispute resolution to settle child custody cases; The Human Rights Act 2010 provides for the resolution of complaints through section 26(1). Federally, examples include: The Constitution Act, (UK) 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c 3.; Criminal Code, RSC 1985 c C-46.; Youth Criminal Justice Act, SC 2002, c 1.; Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992 c 20.; and Public Prosecution Service of Canada Deskbook, 2020, ss 3.8 & 5.4.
​
In 2018, JPS hosted the Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Ministers of Justice gathering in NL. Here they endorsed “Restorative Justice - Key Elements of Success,” and committed to increasing the use of restorative justice from 2018-2021. Following this meeting, five locations throughout NL held Justice Summits where attendees listed the lack of alternative processes as their primary concern. The current administration has been investing in restorative justice by funding Relationships First NL (RFNL- see below) and Community Justice Connect (CJC – see below) through the NL Human Rights Commission. In 2023, the only government-funded program developing and implementing restorative justice is Community Justice Connect, a program by the NL Human Rights Commission.
4. Programs and Practices
4.1 Current Indigenous restorative justice programs and practices
Several communities in NL are working to establish Healing and Wellness/Indigenous Courts in their communities. These will be available to Indigenous people and will apply Indigenous Justice principles that satisfy non-Indigenous court requirements. Funding is being provided both by provincial and federal grants. Some of these communities have developed specific restorative justice programs that comply with Federal restorative justice standards to divert cases away from the traditional court system and keep people out of jail. Others are establishing various community-based justice initiatives that may or may not reflect or engage with restorative justice principles and practices (Innu, Nunatsiavut Government). Miawpukek, after extensive consultation with community elders, developed a community-designed approach to restorative justice in 2001. The program is committed to increasing community cohesiveness, educating youth regarding the judicial system, and facilitating situations involving minor crimes that would otherwise result in charges and court procedures. They facilitate approximately 12 cases per year. Flat Bay has been practicing restorative justice formally since 2004 after they received training from the Miawpukek facilitators. This expanded in 2014 when the RCMP and Dr. Rosemary Ricciardelli, a Memorial University professor, established the provision of Extra Judicial Measures for the youth of six Mi’kmaq communities. In 2020, Flat Bay, in collaboration with eight bands received a total of $801,876 in federal funding through Justice Canada’s Indigenous Justice Program, the Justice Partnership and Innovation Program, and the Youth Justice Fund to support the development of a comprehensive restorative justice program that aims at reducing youth contact with the law and equalizing incarceration rates proportional to the population. Various other federal and provincial funding initiatives currently and previously allow for Indigenous communities to develop approaches that will alleviate the over-representation of their members in the judicial system. However, none of these are specific restorative justice programs as described by Correction Services Canada (Quinn, 2023; Government of Canada, Justice) First Voice is a coalition of urban Indigenous Peoples, service providers, and government working together to advance truth and reconciliation in St. John’s, NL. In 2023 they completed their Community Action Plan, which includes 42 Calls for Change, one of which, #35, commits to promoting and supporting the availability of restorative justice programs (First Voice, 2023).
​
As Indigenous justice systems and programs develop within the Indigenous communities in NL, changes within the Western judicial system to better serve Indigenous populations are slow or non-existent resulting in the perpetuation of stereotypes, over-incarceration rates, and culture exclusion. For example, while the landmark Supreme Court decision that created Gladue reports was decided on April 23, 1999, only one full Gladue report was officially used in 2022. It is unclear what is prohibiting the full implementation of Gladue in the province, however, according to Bradbury (2022), funding, in-province resources, and acceptance by the courts of Gladue principles in place of full reports, contribute.
5. Current non-Indigenous programs and practices
5.1 CJC-Human Rights
Beginning in 2020, the NL Human Rights Commission in collaboration with Relationships First NL (see next section) developed a restorative justice service for Indigenous, racialized, and religious minority communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of immigration status. Initially funded through a $165,000 grant from the Department of Canadian Heritage Anti-Racism Action Program, with in-kind support from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the program soft-launched in July 2021.
​
Community Justice Connect acknowledges the diverse and intersectional requirements of Indigenous and racialized people in Newfoundland and Labrador. The program has two paid staff and 18 volunteer Community Facilitators who undergo specialized training in restorative justice, anti-racism, anti-oppression, and anti-colonial approaches. Community Facilitators are primarily racialized and Indigenous members of the community, and are assigned to cases based on their experiences, training, and background.
​
CJC, primarily funded through JPS, is a one-of-a-kind service in NL. Cases are referred directly from individuals, organizations, or communities or through all stages of the human rights complaint process. Participants can access CJC by phone, email, or online. At intake, they meet with Facilitators to explore what has happened and discuss if a restorative process will meet their needs. Services offered include conflict coaching, support sessions with facilitators to explore options, mediation, circle process, and indirect communication with other parties.
Human rights complaints can be settled and resolved through a CJC process. The CJC program does not work with criminal justice matters or with other areas of the justice system. The program is developing and adjusting to learnings as needed. Smaller projects have been funded through other groups to develop emerging areas of the program. For example, CJC is researching the possibility and potential for participants to access legal advice as a part of its team-based approach. Community Justice Connect also receives cases involving systemic issues affecting communities and looks for trends in cases to identify systemic issues.
5.2 Relationships First NL
Relationships First NL (RFNL) is a consortium of community and government partners housed in Memorial University’s Faculty of Education. Founded in 2014, it has focused primarily on integrating restorative justice into NL schools. Its mandate is to nurture relational cultures in organizations in NL that serve children and youth. It emerged from a SSHRC-funded research project (2012) that focused on implementing restorative justice from the ground up by introducing it first to educators rather than directors of education. Though growth has been gradual, in 2020, through the influence of educators requesting more engagement with restorative justice, the newly appointed education minister's mandate letter included a directive to work toward implementing restorative justice principles into all the province’s schools. A newly revised Safe, Inclusive, and Caring Schools Policy to be released in 2024 is anticipated to be responsive to this mandate to integrate a relational restorative framework. In 2022, the Department of JPS granted RFNL $600,000 over three years to support the growth of restorative justice in the areas of education, community, and justice.
5.3 Justice and Public Safety
A number of programs are considered to have restorative justice elements but do not fully engage with Restorative Justice principles or practices. These include Drug Treatment Court (DTC), Intimate Partner Violence Court (IPVC), Mental Health Court (MHC), and Adult Diversion (AD). DTC is a federally funded program that was established in St. John’s in 2018, as an alternative approach for offenders with serious drug addictions, who commit non-violent, drug-motivated offenses.
The Adult Diversion program is a post-charge diversion program for individuals with non-violent offenses. Established in 2019 as a pilot project in the Western Region of NL, it offers an alternative to the Western court process. The program provides an effective and timely response to an incident that encourages individuals to acknowledge and repair harm and provides an opportunity for the victim to participate in the process. To qualify, individuals may not have a mandatory minimum sentence, must accept responsibility for the act with which they are charged, and their offense must not relate to cases of bodily harm, intimate partner violence, sexually violent offenses, impaired driving, or offenses with child victims. Though engaging with restorative justice principles, these various programs are promoted primarily as available alternative approaches more so than restorative justice approaches.
6. Current collaborative Indigenous and non-Indigenous Initiatives
Two-Eared Listening for Deeper Understanding: Restorative Justice in NL began as a unique collaboration between Chief Mi’sel Joe of Miawpukek First Nation and a small group of academics from Memorial University associated with Relationships First Newfoundland and Labrador. From 2019 to 2021, the group, mentored by Chief Joe, worked together to plan an event where non-Indigenous leaders in the province’s community, education, and judiciary sectors would come to listen deeply, with Two-Ears (insights informed by heart and soul), to Indigenous stories of injustice in an effort to better understand the complexity and practice of what restorative justice needs to be. The three-day gathering in November 2021 proved to be transformative in recognizing that provincial restorative justice practices could not be developed without authentic engagement with Indigenous leadership. This was followed by an event in May 31- June 1, 2023, called The Elders Speak: Two-eyed Seeing and Two-Eared Listening where the group brought together the originator of Two-Eyed Seeing, Dr. Elder Albert Marshall and Chief Mi’sel Joe in dialogue for three public events to share the importance of these concepts for society today. Ongoing events are being held and collaborations are growing as the various worldviews, beliefs, and ways of being intersect to create a holistic understanding of what justice and balance in society can be (see: www.twoearedlistening.com).
7. Research: Findings and Gaps
Historically, living conditions in NL have been challenging. To address this, neighbours relied on each other, and relational ways of living were key to survival. In some ways, the structure, size, and history of NL communities have the potential to facilitate the development of restorative justice. In spite of the efforts to engage in restorative justice over time, in 2023, a consistent or complete record still does not exist. The few listed above, offer a glimpse but are not representative of the significant work done, especially in Indigenous communities.
Both the lack of a complete record and formal directives from the provincial government, unfortunately, reveal that NL has not engaged with restorative justice as other provinces have done. As implementation is challenging for all jurisdictions, exploring the reasons for NL’s experiences would inform their way forward and might also deepen the understanding of rj in other places. Emerging from the details above, answers to the following types of questions may provide ways forward. Are NL’s challenges connected to: NL’s contentious Indigenous and non-Indigenous relationships? The historical role of religion in settlement? NL’s date for joining Confederation? The impact of the exposure of Mt. Cashel's abuse coinciding with NL and Canada’s early engagement with restorative justice?
​
The underlying context is multi-faceted, but until specific research is conducted, it will remain unknown.
8. Emerging Opportunities and Innovation
NL may be poised to engage more successfully with incorporating restorative justice formally in spite of its past challenges. Recent initiatives are hopeful, especially when combined with past and present restorative justice experiences of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and a cultural ethic that values relationship and connection. NL is also attuned to the current national discourse that acknowledges how Indigenous and racial justice are interlaced with restorative justice.
​
With approximately 20% of the population identifying as Indigenous or having Indigenous ancestry, there is significant interest in reviving Indigenous justice practices in the Indigenous nations that are/have claimed national sovereignty. The ties restorative justice has to Indigenous justice are being recognized and there is ongoing discussion regarding the similarities and differences.
NL is also focused on immigration, and thus the racial and religious demographics, particularly in St. John's, are changing. Active racial justice and social justice communities (Anti-Racist Coalition of NL; Social Justice Cooperative NL) are shifting the conversation around justice, with more people calling for racial and transformative justice.
​
All of these shifts combined with significant Indigenous leadership, CJC’s direct mandate to serve marginalized communities, RFNL’s holistic philosophical framework, and the provincial government’s recent increased funding could be the confluence of strengths needed to make headway. NL has the opportunity to learn from other jurisdictions in Canada, and by embracing its size and place, it could create a sustainable provincial approach to restorative justice.
9. Conclusion
A culture shift towards relational, mutual accountability, and justice is built in small moments. There is no endpoint for this work. Its development will be a living conversation in our province and our communities. Colonial structures of time and success factor into this discourse. If we are steadfast in leaning into decolonizing, Indigenizing, racial justice, and seeing each other as worthy, we will slowly build the trust to keep this work moving forward. All of this requires time, energy, and funding. For a fuller understanding, it is critical for settlers and restorative justice practitioners in NL to be very mindful of perpetuating colonial harm by framing Indigenous as a monolith. At a minimum, commitment to reading books by Indigenous authors will allow for “undoing the first harm” (Valandra, 2022) as we learn of variations and richness of Indigenous justice through Indigenous voices. We also need to be clear that any success in restorative justice requires funding of long-term (not pilot) programs with stable infrastructure that provide secure employment. With such on-going investments, we can slowly build on the work and movements with RJ in NL. Work will be ongoing and require a commitment for generations.
Note of thanks to: Margaret Cranford who provided insight regarding the history of Indigenous communities in NL and the many people who were consulted for details for this article: Gale Burford, Andrew John, Irene Joe, John Joy, Liz Lasaga, Scott Morton-Ninomiya, Ken Templeton, Judy White.
​
First written for “The International Encyclopaedia of Restorative Justice. Eds. Ivo Aertsen & Jennifer Llewellyn. Publishing date: TBA. Used with permission.
References
Allan H., Rauktis M. E., Pennell J., Merkel-Holguin L., Crampton D. (2020). Family meetings as system reform to address disproportionality and disparities. In Dettlaff A. L. (Ed.), Racial disproportionality and disparities in the child welfare system. Springer.
Aylward, C. (2014). The Beothuk story: European and First Nations narratives of the Beothuk people of Newfoundland. Dissertation.
Bowman, M. 2016. Crisis, change and 'the continuous art of individual interpretation and negotiation': the aftermath of clerical sexual abuse in Newfoundland. Journal of the Irish Society for the Academic Study of Religions, 3(1), 140-170.
Bradbury, T. (2022). Gladue principle evolving in N.L.: Law requires judges to pay particular attention to circumstances of Indigenous offenders. Saltwire Press.
Collins, M. (1996). The Cost of Processing Individuals in the Present Provincial Criminal Justice System Versus Community Mediation Services Inc. for Five Selected Summary Offenses. Study completed for Community Mediation Services.
Community Justice Connect: Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission. https://thinkhumanrights.ca/community-justice-connect/ (Last accessed 21 April 2023)
Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Restorative Justice: Restorative Justice–Key Elements of Success. November 2018. Retrieved from: https://scics.ca/en/product-produit/news-release-federal-provincial-territorial-meeting-of-ministers-responsible-for-justice-and-public-safety/ (last accessed 21 April 2023)
First Voice. A Vision for the Future: Our Calls for Change. (February 2023). ISBN 978-1-7387971-2-7. Retrieved from: https://firstvoicenl.ca/site/uploads/2023/02/Our-Shared-Vision-Single-Pages.pdf (Last accessed 21 April 2023.)
Government of Canada-Justice: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/pd-dp/gc-sc/details.aspx?yr=20152016&q=Q4&id=22708&wbdisable=true
Government of NL: Population and Demographics. https://www.stats.gov.nl.ca/Statistics/Statistics.aspx?Topic=population
​
Joe, M. & O’Neill, S. (2021) My Indian. Breakwater Books.
McKinnley, S. (Jan. 14, 2021). The legal battle over Newfoundland’s infamous Mount Cashel sexual abuse is finally over. But one of the four plaintiffs didn’t live to see it. The Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/01/14/the-legal-battle-over-newfoundlands-infamous-mount-cashel-sexual-abuse-is-finally-over-but-one-of-the-four-plaintiffs-didnt-live-to-see-it.html
NL Department of Justice and Public Safety (2019). Out of the Silos: Implementing Solutions Together. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.nl.ca/jps/files/publications-pdf-justice-summit-action-plan.pdf (Last accessed 21 April 2023).
Penashue, E. (2019). Nitinikiau Innusi: I Keep the Land Alive. University of Manitoba Press.
Pennell J. & Burford, G. (2000). Family Group Decision Making: Protecting Women and Children. Child Welfare. Vol. LXXIX, #2
Proctor, A. (2020). A Long Journey. ISER Books.
Quinn, E. (2023). Ottawa pledges 1.16 million for justice programs by Inuit government in Atlantic Canada. Retrieved from: https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2023/01/23/ottawa-pledges-1-16-million-for-justice-programs-by-inuit-gov-in-atlantic-canada/
Rollman, H. (1999). Religion in Newfoundland and Labrador. Heritage Newfoundland and Labrador. Retrieved from: https://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/society/religion.php. Last accessed 22 June 2023.)
White, C. (2023). One Man's Journey: The Mi’kmaw Revival in Ktaqmkuk. Memorial University Press.
Winter, H. (2022) Restorative Justice Schemes in Canada for Criminal Matters. Dalhousie University
Winter, H. (2022) Research Guide Re: Restorative Justice Schemes in Canada for Criminal Matters. Dalhousie University
Youngblood Henderson J.S, & McCaslin, W. (2005). Exploring justice as healing: Introduction. In McCaslin (ed.) Justice as Healing (p. 3-9). Living Justice Press.