Our system of criminal law is based on the doctrine of deterrence, on the belief that criminal sanctions discourage criminal behaviour and that any increase in the severity of those sanctions will result in a decrease of the punished behaviour. The doctrine of deterrence does not bear up under empirical analysis of its operational application. Regulations designed to protect the environment, in order to be effective, must temper deterrence with co-operative approaches. The draconian level of the punishments for drinking and driving in Ontario have passed the point of diminished returns and now actually elevate the level of drinking and driving in that province. The 'war on drugs' has become a war on society; in some respects the cure is worse than the disease.

The Ontario government is in the process of implementing Administrative Monetary Penalties(AMPs) for environmental offences. The Federal Government is also studying AMPs. If the Alberta model is followed, AMPs would supplement rather than totally supplant enforcement through prosecution and fines. Administrative Penalties may be a common-sense solution to the practical problems posed by due diligence defences but their circumvention of due process marks them as part of a continuing, and possibly dangerous, trend towards punishing the morally innocent. The survey which I conducted shows that pollution offences, despite their regulatory nature, carry a high degree of stigma and that AMPs carry almost as much stigma as a court-imposed fine. Empirical studies have clearly shown that effective environmental protection requires reasonably robust enforcement. However, a growing number of studies warn that over-zealous enforcement may actually be counter-productive. If AMPs are to be an effective environmental protection tool, they will need to be employed wisely.

Canada's current regime of sanctions for drinking and driving has passed the point of diminishing returns and now exacerbates the problem. Current penalties are more than sufficient to deter potential one-time offenders. Problem drinkers and repeat offenders should be brought into a system where their behaviours can be regulated and modified. Instead, inflexible and draconian minimum penalties foster continued offending and continuing traffic carnage. This chapter was published almost in its entirety as Impaired Driving Sentences: Part of the Problem, (2002) 16 M.V.R. (4th) 41. The chart below shows that provinces, such as Alberta, which permitted the imposition of conditional sentences, enjoyed a greater reduction in imparied driving than did provinces, such as Ontario, which did not. Additionally, Alberta's program of reduced driver licence suspensions for drivers who installed an ignition interlock device coincided with further accelerated reductions in drinking and driving.