Starting with the existing text of NDP-2, it sets out language around reasonableness and proportionality and brings up “proportionate” as a distinct concept from reasonableness. This has some substantial risks to implementation down the road.
I do appreciate the intent and the concern over adequate guardrails. I would note that the criteria for reasonableness, as established by the Supreme Court, has principles of proportionality embedded within it. That's outlined in case law and the 2019 Vavilov decision in particular.
Bringing out “proportionate” separately from reasonableness and inserting it into the bill has different connotations from the plain-language understanding of the word “proportionate”, and as a stand-alone concept outside of an administrative law context, it is only used in a charter rights context.
My understanding, based on the testimony or submissions I've seen, is that it's not the intent to apply a charter rights standard to the regulation of mundane equipment issues in the telecom sector. However, in writing it this way and importing that Supreme Court language, there's a risk of that down the road.