Again, it's consequential to the division of responsibility between the commissioner of firearms and the CFO of jurisdiction. The wording as it is now would not accommodate that division of responsibility. It's simply accommodating the motions carried by the committee that would divide that responsibility. Otherwise, the geographic provision wouldn't make the most sense, given how the committee has elected to redraft it. This would fix what would become a problem were this not done.
Again, I would refer you to the existing subsection 63(3) of the act, which, again, has wording that would not accommodate the division of responsibility between the commissioner and the CFO of jurisdiction. If you like, I can read it.