Thank you, Chair.
Would the witnesses have any insight as to who could respond more quickly to an authorization to carry, given the proximity to the person making the request and given the fact that the purpose behind this would be for the safety of the individual receiving the authorization to carry?
It would seem to me that removing the decision-making one step further away from the province from which the person is making the inquiry and into the commissioner's office rather than the CFO's office would be adding a layer of bureaucracy or removing the process from where the decision is more likely to be understood by the decision-maker.
I can't help but think that a chief firearms officer in Alberta, British Columbia or anywhere else would be better suited to make a decision on who should be carrying a firearm in Alberta, rather than somebody who is situated elsewhere in the country.
If the individual's life is at risk and the application for the authorization to carry.... Would this process, or this change in who's making the decision, potentially put that person at risk?