I'll take a first cut at it, and perhaps turn it over to David afterwards.
I think what we need to be mindful of is that—and I come from a criminology background so you'll forgive me for getting a little bit academic—when we talk about what modifies behaviour in corrections, we're looking at deterrence when we talk about the imposition of additional punitive measures. Some of the things we need to understand about deterrence is that it's only effective under fairly specific circumstances. I think what we need to be mindful of in this case is....
Adding tools for deterrence isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it's been expressed here clearly today that it's important to provide parole officers with the tools they need to do their work, but some of those tools also need to ensure that they have supports and services in the community that they can provide their clients access to in order to help them avoid, basically, having a dirty urine screen, so to avoid re-entry into the use of substances.
What we're really doing, if we're not providing people with the services and supports that they need in the community is that we're not fully recognizing addiction as a disease, as a health issue. We wouldn't expect somebody with diabetes to get better on their own without medical intervention, so how can we expect somebody with the disease of addiction to be released into the community with no supports and to simply get better on their own?