I'll start by reiterating why I think it's a good idea, although I would argue not to jump in with the U.S. fair use provision but rather to use, as I mentioned, the “such as” approach and turn the current fair dealing purposes into a group of illustrative purposes rather than an exhaustive list.
I think that both provides the benefits of being able to rely on our existing jurisprudence, as it represents an evolution of where we're at rather than starting from scratch, and makes it a far more technologically neutral approach. Rather than every five years having people coming up and saying that you need to deal with AI or with some other new issue that pops up, that kind of provision has the ability to adapt as time goes by. We're seeing many countries move in that direction.
I would lastly note that in what's critical as part of this, whether you call it fair dealing or fair use, what's important is whether or not it's fair. The analysis about whether or not it is fair remains unchanged, whether it's an illustrative group or an exhaustive group. That's what matters: to take a look at what's being copied and assess whether it's fair. The purpose is really just a very small part of that overall puzzle, yet by limiting the list we then lock ourselves into a particular point in time and aren't able to adapt as easily as technology changes.