The concern is on the hosting exception. In hosting, you make the storage and you store the copy into the host. The existing language talks about the act of providing digital memory not being an infringement of copyright; the concern is that if someone were to think of the copying and then the transmission out as two separate acts, it could lead to someone’s asking a court to say the copy was covered but the transmission is not; that act alone is a second act.
All Shaw has proposed is to tweak it so that explicitly making the copy and transmitting the copy back to the person would all be covered under the same exception. It's not an expansion; it's just clarifying the intent.