What I would say is that the law is specific, generally, wherever it grants the CRTC the power to impose terms or conditions.
Our view is that even if you struck it—again, because there are other instances in the act, I think, wherein it explicitly references terms and conditions—the reading would likely be that it doesn't include it here.
That said, I think it increases the ambiguity about whether the CRTC would or would not have the power to impose terms or conditions. I think it would be a more ambiguous outcome.