I hear you when you suggest that their means to know the details are probably electronic. In addition, the means to know and contact parole officers and advise them of a suspected violation are currently more available. But we often hear of the revolving door. This is a bit of a recipe for a revolving door.
If someone is committing an offence that breaches the peace, then the powers of the police officers are still there. The parole order is expected to be supervised by parole officers and not, in effect, to set up a separate set of criminal offences or criminal code for a particular individual. We have to recognize that parole supervision is in the hands of professionals who have in mind the dual purpose of the protection of the public and the rehabilitation of the offender. Parole is for that purpose. A parole officer is not necessarily going to yank someone's parole in every single circumstance no matter how slight the deviation from the conditions of parole may be.
The suggestion is that the supervision of parole should be left as much as possible in the hands of parole officers and that we shouldn't try to contribute to the revolving door. If someone is breaching the peace to the point of committing an offence, aside from the offence of breaching parole or a condition of release, then one would expect that the police would be the right persons to take action. But as to giving this power in situations where we're supervising an individual on parole—and we have the parole service and parole officers in place—I think no sufficient reason has been given for why the system in existence now, which is not broken, needs to be fixed in this way.