BACK-END: CRA Tracks Coverage of Undefined "Persons & Organizations" When Awarding Journalism Tax Credits
The possibility that news outlets can be rejected from government tax benefits for simply reporting on the activities of certain people or organizations is problematic for free speech.
The idea that news outlets can be rejected from government tax programs for simply reporting on the activities of “certain persons or organizations,” especially if the specifics of those terms are undefined and could possess multiple meanings, is problematic from a free speech perspective.
It’s even worse if no one is allowed to independently validate how those terms are used and what they mean when assessing government decisions.
Yet that seems to be exactly the situation outlined in the August 24th, 2024 Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) report, “Independent Advisory Board on Eligibility for Journalism Tax Measures - Annual Report 2023-2024.”
The report is an overview of activities performed by the CRA Advisory Board in the one year period from April 1st, 2023, to March 31st, 2024.
According to the report, the Advisory Board mandate is to provide:
… an independent assessment and make written, non-binding recommendations as to whether an organization meets certain criteria to be designated as a qualified Canadian journalism organization (QCJO).
Specifically, whether an organization produces original news content, and regularly employs two or more journalists who deal at arm's length with the organization in the production of its content.
A CRA accreditation from the Advisory Board, provides substantial and ongoing Federal government funding to organizations designated as Qualified Canadian Journalism Organizations (QCJOs).
Successful QCJO applicants are mostly traditional, legacy news organizations like the Globe, the Star and the National Post, looking to maintain their operations in the face of declining revenue streams and newer, more effective business models.
The report lists the three criteria under which the Advisory Board assesses organizations applying for QCJO certification:
Is the organization engaged in the production of original news content on an ongoing basis?
Does the organization regularly employ two or more journalists who deal at arm’s length with the organization in the production of its content?
Is the organization significantly engaged in the production of content for certain government entities or of content promoting the interests of, or reporting on the activities of, certain persons or organizations?
While the first two criteria listed above are also problematic, if only because so many of the terms, including “arms length,” “original news content” and “ongoing basis,” are essentially undefined and open to interpretation, the real problem with the Advisory Board, lies in the third criteria they use to assess QCJO applicants.
The question of whether a media outlet is “significantly engaged in the production of content for certain government entities” or engaged in creating “content promoting the interests of, or reporting on the activities of, certain persons or organizations,” is certainly information already mostly on the public record.
The publication is publishing these stories and actively attempting to encourage distribution and readership. They should be easy enough to access and count.
But published content is never as important as the relationship (financial or otherwise) between the government agencies, people and organizations being covered and the media outlet.
Is that relationships being assessed? The CRA Advisory Board report doesn’t make that clear.
What if there is no financial or other relationship between the media outlet and the “certain government entities,” persons or organizations being covered?
The CRA Advisory Board report doesn’t define this as being important or unimportant in the CRA Advisory Board’s application for QCJO status.
Or maybe, just maybe, the CRA Advisory board doesn’t like it when specific government agencies, private individuals or organizations and their initiatives are reported on?
The CRA Advisory Board report doesn’t make that clear, either.
After all, legacy news outlets, most of whom have received QCJO designations, have also mostly refused to cover a wide variety of newsworthy stories including the constant and well attended weekly protests in almost every major Canadian city against government policy during the great pandemic of 2020 - 2022, the utility of the various vaccines amongst the public during that period along with a number of other stories which were normally covered by media outlets in the past.
Does covering the “wrong” stories disqualify a media outlet from obtaining QCJO status? No one knows about this or any other questions relating to CRA Advisory Board activities.
All CRA Advisory Board assessments are kept secret under the confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, at least according to the CRA Advisory Board annual report.
Which is a shame, since the tax credits provided under the QCJO designation are substantial and need to be perceived of as being distributed in a fair and unbiased manner.
That can’t happen without an understanding of the internal logic being used by CRA Advisory Board members to draw conclusions.
There is also a reasonable concern over whether or not simply holding a perspective is discouraged by the CRA Advisory Board.
For example and as noted in the October 28th, 2024 Roasting the Press story on “The CRA and the Courts Define Canadian Journalism Badly,” Rebel News applied in 2021 to be designated as a QCJO but was rejected, mostly because the CRA Advisory Board didn’t believe Rebel News wasn’t perceived of as producing “enough original news content.”
That CRA decision went to court in 2024, where a judge:
… assessed 423 news reports from Rebel News published during the three-week period (between January 30th and February 19th, 2022, which is when a trucker convoy occupied downtown Ottawa demanding an end to COVID-19 restrictions.) and found that only 10 were original news items.
Of the rest, "283 of the items were not based on facts, nor were multiple perspectives actively pursued, researched, analyzed, or explained by a journalist for the organization," the judge wrote. "A further 135 of the news items were identified as being curated content or material rewritten from other sources."
So why was Rebel News really denied its CRA journalism accreditation?
The public may never know since the CRA Advisory Board report referenced in news reports and the original court case transcript (Rebel News Network Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1468 (CanLII) ), listed as being the basis for the court decision isn’t available for public perusal or criticism.
That’s right.
We need to take the CRA and the court’s word that only ten Rebel News reports out of 423 were “original news content” during the three week period tracked by the CRA Advisory Board.
But at least the Rebel News reports published during that period are on the public record and available for reference. We can even check them out on the Rebel News website.
Curiously enough, the period tracked by the CRA Advisory Board, from January 30th and February 19th, 2022 coincided with the ongoing Ottawa Trucker Convoy protests and the February 14th, 2024 invocation of the Emergencies Act, essentially the Federal government’s declaration of “martial law,” in an attempt to regain control over the situation.
A quick search on stories published during that time period suggests that the only real difference between Rebel News and the coverage of its legacy media competitors was that Rebel generally filed coverage supportive of the protesters and their aims but critical of both the provincial and Federal governments and their actions.
Rebel held a perspective at odds with government policy during that period and at odds with most other legacy news outlets. On the other hand, Rebels perspective was eventually upheld in Canadian courts.
As outlined in the January 23rd, 2024 Freedom Forum post, “Federal Court rules use of Emergencies Act was Unconstitutional and Unreasonable,” another judge in a different court eventually ruled the invocation of the Emergencies Act unconstitutional.
This suggests that the Rebel News perspective during this period was reasonable, even if the CRA Advisory Board might have felt otherwise.
To be fair, no one knows the true biases of the CRA Advisory Board when judging individual applications for QCJO accreditation, looking to receive large amount of money from the Federal government.
But the indications are in the vague language of the CRA Advisory Board mandate and in the actual coverage provided by Rebel News during the three week period assessed which differed only in editorial perspective from other outlets receiving qualified Canadian journalism organization (QCJO) accreditation.
Given the importance of a free and open media to the continued operation of a free society, the governing Federal Liberals might want to open up CRA Advisory board deliberations to the outside world.
As noted by Viscount Gordon Hewart, the 1st Lord Chief Justice of England from 1922 to 1940, “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.”
This must change