Different countries have different institutional arrangements in terms of how this is set up. It is not necessarily a minister. It depends on the context.
As for the reasons, I would first and foremost flag that some of the powers that would be captured by this amendment are for the Governor in Council as opposed to a minister. However, one might then also ask why the authority is under a minister. What started with that proposition? There are two main regulators of telecommunications in Canada. There's the CRTC, and there's ISED under the Minister of Industry. That's been the case since at least the 1980s.
Right now, the minister can revoke someone's licence to provide wireless services and can turn off their wireless services. Certainly, the degree of exigency associated with justifying that decision would have to be very, very considerable. I cannot think of a single case where that, in fact, happened. However, that is an authority that has existed with either the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Communications since, I think, the 1970s at least.
There is a wide range of ongoing regulation of these private sector companies that is material to these companies and has to do with their ongoing network management. With regard to issues with respect to human rights, such as speech, those are not within the scope of the Telecommunications Act, and the committee also adopted a “for greater certainty” amendment that further scoped out those considerations.
This approach is consistent with many decades of how the telecommunications sector has been regulated.