As you have stated, in practice, most of the red flag clauses exist already. For example, when a person calls the Canadian Firearms Centre, one of the first things that they are asked is if he or she has concerns regarding their partner or another person. If the answer is yes, that person will immediately be put through to the relevant authorities.
That said, I fully support what the other police officers who testified before me have stated: when a person is in danger, the first people to call are always the police. It would take an inordinate amount of time to go before the courts to try and get a firearm licence suspended, as is proposed in these amendments, and the courts are already overwhelmed.
The problem, as I see it, is that people can go before the courts to explain their point of view in good faith, but the judge won't get the police officers' perspective. Police officers have information that the judge cannot access at that time. For example, the judge does not have access to data banks or to police expertise. He or she will simply have to base their decision on the person before them who has expressed their concerns.
Finally, I have to say that this clause could also be used for fraudulent reasons or revenge, especially when it comes to disputes between ex‑partners. As we know, anything goes if you want to hurt a former partner, unfortunately. This could be a way to—