In Finland, most taxpayers never submit returns to the government. On the contrary, the Finnish government sends out completed tax returns to its citizens after assembling data from employers, financial institutions, insurance companies and other databases. Only 3 taxpayers in 10 need to provide additional information to modify the government's statement. It is safe to say that the Canada Revenue Agency can only dream about that level of trust.
Compared to Finland, Canada appears to have set its goals for electronic government remarkably low: We want to cut costs, make services more efficient and demonstrate accountability, but Finland identifies trust as a primary goal of its public and private information technology activities and, as a result, gains greater efficiencies and a broader range of services.
In 2002, Olavi KC6ngC$s, then Chief Information Officer at Finland's Finance Ministry, wrote, "Finland's strength in electronic government lies in a good and efficiently employed information infrastructure. In developing the infrastructure, it is essential that the citizens rely on confidentiality, protection of privacy and high standard of information when administration handles personal information."
There is a measurable cost to lack of trust. Statistics Canada presumes that Canadians are gravely concerned about the security of their personal information. In the 2006 Census, no private sector employee will be involved in processing returns. Statistics Canada employees are compelled to take an oath of secrecy and threatened with fines and jail if they reveal identifiable information from the Census. Only Statistics Canada employees working directly with the census will see completed forms, and confidential 2006 Census data will never leave Statistics Canada premises. Canadians are assured that Census data will be stored away from other networks, cut off from external connections. The list of precautions to assuage Canadians' fears goes on for many paragraphs, but the message is clear - personal information is so important that it requires the most strenuous security measures to prevent disaster.
In Finland, by contrast, 98 per cent of the census can be done simply by linking to "administrative registers" or government databases. The remaining 2 per cent is gathered in person, by telephone, mail or Internet. Finns trust their government.
Again: In 2003, then federal Immigration Minister Denis Coderre proposed an electronic national identification card - to significant opposition. Many of his most vocal critics cited the potential for government violation of privacy as their main concern and the idea died. Finland introduced electronic id cards in 1999. After a slow start - and despite a cost of $55C - about 75,000 Finns now carry them. By population, that would be about half a million Canadians. As of last year, Finnish citizens could opt to have health insurance data on their electronic id, reducing the card count in their wallets and purses by one. The card can carry more than 50 different services, including Visa, and this year people began using it to identify themselves over mobile telephones.
Canada is looking to rationalized IT infrastructure for better service delivery, lower costs and more openness to public scrutiny. But it is clear that a relationship of trust between citizens and government can move convenience, savings and transparency to another dimension. "We see the value of integration, but our concept of privacy is b don't integrate," Treasury Board President Reg Alcock said recently. "And that's it. It's not more robust than that. It hasn't been. And so if you want to stop integration, just mouth the word b privacy'."
It is arguably late in the day to develop a culture of trust, because privacy in Canada has been institutionalized, bureaucratized and enshrined in legislation. To reap the full value of their investments in information technology, governments may need to invest in gaining Canadians' trust. Public attitudes will have to change before the law does.
icon.
