Actually, you're right. The Supreme Court of Canada established that the dealing must be fair to begin with and then identified six factors to consider in gauging the fairness of the dealing. They established that copying a work is not fair dealing. That's not fair dealing. That's why there's payment for fair dealing, and no one in the education industry who has appeared before this committee...no one is suggesting that the $43 million that they are currently paying for the right to copy is in any way affected by this bill. They understand that the Supreme Court has already established that copying is not fair dealing.
The sixth point of the Supreme Court is the effect of dealing on the work. That means that the dealing can't diminish the value of the work. Therefore, this idea that including it under fair dealing wipes out the revenue of artists is absolutely false. The Supreme Court has established this, as has the Berne three-step test. But I think this all comes back to people not understanding what fair dealing is.
There are a number of good pieces out there on fair dealing. For example, Michael Geist in December 2010 wrote a good piece on fair dealing, what it means and how it reflects on education. I'd encourage you to seek that out on the Internet. I think he did a good job outlining the concept.