A Liberal backbencher has introduced a bill to give “new powers” to Canada’s privacy commissioner allowing the office to hold social media companies and other to account for breaking the law.

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith said Bill C-413 would allow the commissioner — currently held by Daniel Therrien — to make orders, impose fines, conduct audits and undergo investigations into suspected breaches of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

“Right now they can just issue guidance, they can’t make orders,” said the Toronto-area MP. “That would be one change, moving from an ombudsman to a regulator.”

The bill is based on two reports from the House of Commons’ ethics committee for which he acts as vice-chair. The committee has been studying issues related to online privacy over the course of the last year. Currently, he and his fellow members are studying the global privacy breach involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica.

“We now have a fulsome report from February and we have an interim report tabled yesterday. Both highlight the necessity for new powers for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, both highlight the fact that our privacy commissioner’s powers have fallen behind other jurisdictions around the world,” said Erskine-Smith.

Under his proposed legislation, when companies are found in violation of the law and aren’t taking steps to comply with it thereafter, hefty financial penalties would ensue. Fines could range from $15 million to $30 million, depending on the offence.

The European Union has recently updated its central privacy framework to shield against emerging online data threats. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies to all member nations and holds sanctions of up to 20 million euros, or four per cent of global turnover, depending on which is higher.

Where the GDPR encompasses acts of negligence, Erskine-Smith’s bill only captures “intentional conduct” — groups that have acted recklessly towards the law.

“I don’t want to capture small organizations who are acting in good faith to comply with their privacy obligations,” he added.

Right now, some provincial privacy commissioners technically have “more power” than their federal counterpart. For instance, B.C.’s representative Michael McEvoy has the authority to make orders and issue fines of up to $100,000.To that end, a company operating in B.C. would be subject to stronger privacy regulations than a company operating in Ontario.

This has been central topic of discussion before the ethics committee as a number of witnesses have stated the need to adjust this power imbalance.

The U.K.’s Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, whose powers were broadened recently to include the authority to issue inspections, warrants, emergency orders, and criminal sanctions, reinforced the need for her Canadian counterpart to have similar authority during her committee appearance on May 10.

“I would say that the Canadian Privacy Commissioner’s powers have fallen behind the rest of the world,” said Denham.

“Having order-making power, having the ability to levy administrative penalties, civil monetary penalties, and certainly the ability to seize material and to act quickly, I think are really important when we’re dealing with global data companies and fast-paced investigations.”

At the same meeting, McEvoy echoed those remarks.

“Canadians want to have some sense that somebody with some regulatory power has their backs. That can’t happen unless the regulator has the appropriate authority to ensure that these kinds of things are properly remedied if there is a concern with or a transgression of the law,” he said.

McEvoy’s mandate also includes holding political parties to account, something the federal commissioner doesn’t have jurisdiction of as federal parties remain absent from privacy law.

“Political parties in B.C. can and do collect personal information about voters, but they do so under the same reasonable legal responsibilities and obligations that apply to other organizations,” said McEvoy. “You have the Privacy Commissioner of Canada who could adjudicate those matters, potentially, because he is in a good place. He has the expertise. He has the staff. He has the investigatory capability to look at those kinds of issues.”

Erskine-Smith’s bill was adopted following question period and will be addressed when the House returns in the fall.