Canadian government backtracks on using media subsidy criteria as accreditation
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada initially refused to respond to my request for information because I don't match the official qualified Canadian journalism organization criteria.
A couple weeks ago, I reached out to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to inquire about the Canadian government’s new policy of fast tracking “skilled military recruits” for permanent residency.
I’ll have something on that in due course, but in the meantime I want to write about my saga of attempting to get IRCC to respond to a simple media inquiry as an independent journalist and what it says about the government’s failure to keep up with the changing dynamics of Canada's media industry.
A few hours after my Feb. 27 inquiry, I received a response from IRCC spokesperson Jeffrey MacDonald informing me that the ministry “conducts a detailed review of all media requests received to assess each outlet’s eligibility for media services.”
“As your organization doesn’t qualify for these services, you may wish to pursue other avenues to obtain information from IRCC,” he wrote.
MacDonald linked me to IRCC’s “media accreditation criteria,” which reads:
IRCC media relations services are limited to
journalists engaged in researching, reporting or editing for recognized online, print and broadcast news services or magazines that regularly publish or broadcast original news
students enrolled in a full-time journalism program
The requester must work on behalf of an organization that demonstrates a commitment to producing original news content on an ongoing basis and is not engaged in producing content that serves to promote their immigration business interests.
IRCC must be satisfied that journalists requesting media relations services are media professionals who represent bona fide media organizations, which are defined using criteria similar to the qualified Canadian journalism organization [QCJO] designation in the Income Tax Act. [Emphasis added.]
So a Canadian government ministry was using criteria to determine eligibility for subsidies to determine who is or isn’t a legitimate journalist worth engaging with, thereby privileging established media outlets that receive government funding.
IRCC isn’t alone. Global Affairs Canada is also using the QCJO criteria to confer legitimacy on media outlets.
The implications of the government refusing to engage with journalists who aren’t eligible for state funding are disturbing.
After an intervention on my behalf by Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) president Brent Jolly and a story from Stu Benson in the Hill Times, IRCC has backtracked. But I think it’s worth having my first-hand experience, with its twists and turns, in the public record for future reference.
Right-wing media outlets have long warned that “widespread subsidies to private media outlets was a slippery slope that would become a form of media accreditation,” tweeted Harrison Lowman, managing editor of the conservative online outlet The Hub. In this instance, their suspicions were correct.
The QCJO criteria, established in 2019, is by no means the first time government bodies have imposed criteria that preferences established media outlets. As friend of the Orchard Desmond Cole noted in response to Lowman, when he covered Toronto City Hall for an independent outlet in 2010, organizations could only receive a press pass if they rented office space at city hall.
“Access has long been exclusive and biased towards corporate media,” wrote Cole.
I’ve been told IRCC is working to update its media accreditation criteria in conjunction with other ministries, which is a welcome gesture. But this will only remove one barrier independent journalists face to being treated with the same credibility as established players.
After I posted IRCC’s response to my request on social media, PressProgress reporter Luke LeBrun reached out to IRCC to inquire about it.
LeBrun told me that by using QCJO criteria to determine accreditation, IRCC is “perverting the original point of the QCJO designation and using it to decide who has the right to ask the government questions.”
“‘Media relations services’ is not a luxury add-on perk reserved for VIPs. In a democracy, the government has a duty to answer questions from journalists and communicate information with the public,” he added.
LeBrun characterized IRCC’s response to his request “baffling.”
“If the requestor has any concerns about our assessment, we invite them to reply directly to us with these concerns, as we note that you are writing from a different outlet,” an unidentified IRCC spokesperson wrote to LeBrun.
This is pure Kafka. No, we won’t respond to your inquiries, but if you have any inquiries about why we won’t respond to your inquiries, feel free to reach out!
So I did, noting that I’ve never had a media request from government denied because I don’t meet the QCJO criteria. I asked how long this policy has been in place and whether it applies across the federal government.
The response didn’t answer either question, but was nonetheless revealing:
Based on our assessment, while The Orchard does produce news content, its business model also includes Substack under the same brand, which produces subscription based content. These additional activities are a main consideration in determining that it does not fully meet IRCC’s media accreditation criteria.
So Substack is verboten, because it “produces subscription based content,” which could be said of any newspaper.
I have a hard time believing that IRCC would tell Paul Wells, who now writes on Substack after a career working for Maclean’s, the Toronto Star and National Post, to seek information elsewhere.
Upon the suggestion of some peers, I reached out to Brent Jolly of the CAJ. I’m not a CAJ member and I’ve been critical of the organization in the past, but Jolly took my matter with the utmost seriousness, which he agreed was a manifestation of a much broader issue.
He wrote a March 5 email to IRCC asking for clarity about the “policy that IRCC has implemented regarding how it responds to queries from journalists,” how long it has been in place and whether it’s been implemented government-wide.
“There are many journalists who work independently and have started their own platforms that do not carry QCJO designations,” wrote Jolly.
“For this reason, I worry that the policy that has been put in place is too rigid in its interpretation of who qualifies as a bona fide journalist and this approach could have much wider impacts on press freedom in Canada.”
On March 6 around noon, Benson from the Hill Times emailed IRCC as well for comment on his story.
Within an hour, I received an apologetic email from IRCC director of media relations Ariane Boyer, who said the government is “launching a review of our accreditation criteria with the aim to ensure we stay aligned with best practices and responsive to the media’s evolving needs.”
At 2 p.m., Jolly received a very similar response from IRCC director general of public affairs and strategic communications Frédéric Baril, who said the policy has been in place since February 2023.
Boyer explained that the policy was implemented by IRCC because its media team was fielding inquiries from immigration consultants “to produce content for their web platforms.”
“This content was primarily intended to promote their commercial interests in the immigration field rather than to inform the public in a neutral, journalistic manner,” wrote Boyer.
She added that IRCC’s media team does its “best to demonstrate flexibility and openness to finding practical solutions for freelance journalists.”
“We know that the media landscape is evolving quickly, and we hear you. Safeguarding press freedom is a priority of the highest importance for us, and we realise [sic] we need to look at our criteria to better reflect independent journalists’ reality,” wrote Boyer.
She asked me if I was still interested in having my initial inquiry addressed, to which I replied affirmatively.
A few hours later, I got a response from IRCC.
“Please contact Canadian Armed Forces for questions about their recruitment process and which highly skilled military recruits may meet their eligibility criteria,” it read.
SMH
Jeremy thank you for sharing this alarming and important issue. Not qualifying for receiving information from the IRCC is deeply disturbing. You are a true journalist in every sense of the word. I am glad that this issue came to light and hopefully the IRCC will study and overhaul their -far behind the times- policies around journalists and news makers outside of the mainstream status quo media. The Orchard is a huge source of Canadian, province wide and local news that I don’t get to find out about anywhere else.