RESTORATIVE JUSTICE EDUCATION
IN
NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR SCHOOLS—
AN OVERVIEW OF ENGAGEMENT

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

71efforts 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.

​​