The Participant Perspectives section provides an overview of what we heard from those who contributed either in person, in writing or by phone.

One participant summed up a perspective we heard repeated clearly across the country about restorative justice (RJ):

“RJ must be victim-centred, voluntary, evidence-based, and those programs that are evidence-based must receive adequate funding, and the mandate must not include to reduce penalties.”

NEED TO CONSIDER VICTIMS CAREFULLY

• It must be an option. Victims must have the choice, not everyone would want to participate in RJ.
• The majority of participants felt that the RJ process was imbalanced in favour of meeting the needs of offenders, rather than victims.
• We hear all the time that RJ is “community based”, but have we really considered who is in the community and whether we have ensured their voices on RJ are heard? Are we properly involving them in RJ?

AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING

• Stakeholders felt there was generally very little awareness and understanding of RJ and that the onus fell on victims to do their own research. More proactive information sharing, awareness and outreach needs to occur.
• Some felt the term “restorative” justice to be problematic or even offensive – implying the ability to “restore” someone to the life they had before the crime. They would like to see a different term used.

PURPOSE AND IMPACT

• Key differences exist in how people see RJ. Some are drawn to a faith-based approach whereas others are not; for example, for some, RJ is ultimately about forgiveness whereas others were very clear in expressing that forgiveness must not be understood as an objective of RJ. There needs to be room for more than one approach.
• “RJ helps us understand that we are all concerned about justice, as a society.”
• “RJ can resolve fundamental toxic relationships in families and communities, empower victims, and make meaningful changes.”
• Some expressed concerns that RJ would become a means for reducing or avoiding penalties.

APPROPRIATE USE

• Some would like to see RJ as a process occurring in parallel to the criminal justice system. In that model, victims would potentially have a choice about participating in a RJ process instead of going through the formal criminal justice system – even in cases of gender-based violence and sexual violence. The rationale provided for such a model was that the current criminal justice system is not working for victims, and we therefore need to have something else in place for victims from the outset – from the time where police meet with the victim and onwards.
• “What we are talking about is a more relational system. If we can’t move the monolith of the criminal justice system, we need to have something that works around that monolith to take a victim-centred approach until the monolith can change.”
• Views are divergent regarding whether RJ should be used for serious crimes against persons. Those with concerns cited safety, coercion, intimidation and the dynamics of power imbalance in domestic and sexual violence cases. Others cited potential benefits such as research which demonstrated lower recidivism rates amongst those who committed serious crimes and participated in RJ.
• Some advocates and certain communities of Indigenous women do not believe that RJ is appropriate for dealing with sexual and domestic violence. It is believed that RJ sets back the work that has been done to bring public attention and punishment to sexual and domestic violence by privatizing them. It’s felt that this, coupled with gender-based power imbalances within Indigenous communities (developed as a result of the colonization process), may lead to further suffering for women.
• It cannot be a one-size fits all approach. It needs to be studied and significantly adapted for certain populations – such as children, older adults or Indigenous victims. It may be discouraged altogether in some of these cases in order to reduce further harm.

CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS

• Terminology is important and must be used appropriately. For example, RJ is not an Indigenous “traditional practice” but a legal system, which differs from community to community.
• We heard that one of the goals of RJ is for the state to relinquish some of its power and return control to the community to deal with certain matters pertaining to justice. This is however problematic for Indigenous communities in that:
• It assumes or imposes a definition of “community” – communities must be able to define themselves and reflect their identities and community programs should be built from the bottom-up; and
• It fails to acknowledge certain communities’ challenges to deal with their own issue of crime as a result of the devastating endemic effects of colonialism.
• Sentencing circles often displace the burden of “healing” the offender onto their community and family without providing any resources to assist in this. This inadvertently put more emphasis on the healing of the offender vs. victims or community. Many Indigenous women’s groups agree that “survivors of violence are not protected and supported in the circle”.
• There is value in conflicting perspectives about the development of RJ programming. On the one hand there is the view that for RJ to be of consistent quality and conducted in a manner that takes care not to cause further harm, there should be a basis of agreed upon standards, guidelines or principles. At the same time, we clearly heard about the necessity for practitioners to have the flexibility to develop programs that respond to their community’s needs – programs created from the bottom-up without imposed frameworks. Further discussion and study must be done to resolve the contradiction in both valuable ideas.

RESOURCING

• There is a lack of programming in many communities, which was attributed to funding and resource issues. For example, in some areas of the north, prosecutors do not have the option to send a case to an alternative measure, unless the accused is willing to travel back and forth amongst communities, yet it was acknowledged that, if available, such programs could help to address some of the concerns in the victim’s life.
• “My (community-based program RJ program) is well evaluated but survives off of donations through bake sales.”
• Capacity to deliver and sustainability must be carefully considered before anything is rolled out. Practitioners must be carefully trained and, as important, suitable for this work.

This section suggestions options and makes recommendations to the federal government with respect to restorative justice.  The recommendations provided were developed after carefully considering a variety of source material, such as: participant perspectives, the Office’s past work and experience, research, literature reviews and more.

INCREASE AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING

• Develop a national victim-centred RJ strategy in consultation with victims, victim-serving agencies and researchers, and resulting from meaningful dialogue, including with provinces/territories and those who are working within, or accessing, the criminal justice system, in order to allow them to suggest concrete and practical policy and operational solutions.

MAKE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO VICTIMS

• Put in place funding to support victims’ use of RJ. Such funding would address compensation for victims to participate in a process, in order to mitigate any out-of-pocket costs borne by the victim. Funding and resources need also be put in place to support victims before, during and after the process.
• Funding must be made available for RJ agencies to carry out their work and to provide for  dedicated collaborative RJ teams which include victim-centred expertise.
• Explore the potential for providing victims with free legal representation in order to facilitate their participation and to ensure that they are fully informed of rights and potential consequences within the process.
• Create an RJ registry whereby interested victims, accused people, and offenders could register. If a match for RJ is established by the registry, the victim would be contacted by victim services and the offender would be contacted by offender services and the two types of services would work together collaboratively to explore RJ.

EXPAND LEGISLATION

• Modify the CVBR to make it automatic and mandatory to inform victims of RJ opportunities. Currently, the CVBR provides only that a victim has a right to information about RJ “on request”. The CVBR is silent with respect to whose role or responsibility it is to provide such information to victims and as such victims may easily miss important information on this option.
• Explore options for ensuring that restitution orders can be an integral option within the RJ process and that there are adequate collection mechanisms to support payment of the orders.
• Canada could look to option elements of New Zealand’s approach to RJ. In New Zealand, a new section was added to the Sentencing Act in 2014 requiring courts to adjourn in criminal justice proceedings to consider RJ where certain criteria are met. A victim-centred approach is taken to RJ.
• Establish minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims in relation to RJ services, such as those outlined in preamble 46 of EU Directive 2012/29/EU:
  Restorative justice services, including for example victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing and sentencing circles, can be of great benefit to the victim, but require safeguards to prevent secondary and repeat victimisation, intimidation and retaliation. Such services should therefore have as a primary consideration the interests and needs of the victim, repairing the harm done to the victim and avoiding further harm. Factors such as the nature and severity of the crime, the ensuing degree of trauma, the repeat violation of a victim's physical, sexual, or psychological integrity, power imbalances, and the age, maturity or intellectual capacity of the victim, which could limit or reduce the victim's ability to make an informed choice or could prejudice a positive outcome for the victim, should be taken into consideration in referring a case to the restorative justice services and in conducting a restorative justice process. (…)
• Put in place a right to safeguards in relation to RJ services, such as that the one provided in EU Directive 2012/29/EU, general provisions, Article 12:
  Right to safeguards in the context of restorative justice services
  1. Member States shall take measures to safeguard the victim from secondary and repeat victimisation, from intimidation and from retaliation, to be applied when providing any restorative justice services. Such measures shall ensure that victims who choose to participate in restorative justice processes have access to safe and competent restorative justice services, subject to at least the following conditions:
  (a) the restorative justice services are used only if they are in the interest of the victim, subject to any safety considerations, and are based on the victim's free and informed consent, which may be withdrawn at any time;
  (b) before agreeing to participate in the restorative justice process, the victim is provided with full and unbiased information about that process and the potential outcomes as well as information about the procedures for supervising the implementation of any agreement; (…)

CONDUCT AND ASSESS ONGOING RESEARCH

• Conduct ongoing empirical research to explore outcomes with respect to RJ, including to assess its use across various types of crimes and populations (e.g., children, older adults). Such research should ensure to include work to assess victims’ experiences, satisfaction and outcomes.
• Establish an advisory group on evidence, at arms-length from government, to review evidence. Such a group would look not only at positive outcomes but also explore any negative impacts and costing.