Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Monsieur Gélinas, I'd like to start with you, please.
In your opening remarks, you covered many different parts of Bill C-21. You mentioned the fact that there are existing red flag provisions in the Criminal Code, and that's true. If you look at existing sections 109 and 110, there are mandatory prohibition orders and discretionary prohibition orders.
I think the testimony we've received on the proposed addition through Bill C-21 of this red flag law is probably what we as a committee are struggling with the most. A number of witnesses are quite concerned that the provisions in Bill C-21 are going to unfairly place the onus on someone who might be the victim of firearms-related violence to go through an already overburdened court system by themselves.
We've certainly heard from police services what their primary wish is: If someone finds themselves in a threatening position, they should always go to the police first. In our previous panel, Chief Evan Bray of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said that, absolutely, police should always be used as a first resort. However, he was also in favour of other avenues being available to people.
Do you see any instances where the provisions in Bill C-21—these new red flag provisions and going through a court system—might be preferable to using the police?