I would agree that potentially more could be done than what Bill C-63 presents.
I do note, at least, that there is the inclusion of the word “deepfake” in the legislation. If anything, I think it's a good step forward in trying to tackle and get up to date with the definitions that are being used.
I note that legislation that was recently passed in Pennsylvania is criminal legislation that prohibits the dissemination of an artificially generated sexual depictions of individuals. I won't read the definition out in full. It's quite broad.
Bill C-63 does refer to deepfakes, at least, though no definition is provided. I think in that respect, broadening the terminology.... As I said, the privacy law torts are restricted by their definitions and terminology to not include this new problem that we're trying to deal with. To the extent that it gets the definitions more up to date, I think it is a step in the right direction.