June 27, 2025 – for immediate release

The NNC found that a complaint about accuracy in a March 13, 2025, Canadian Press article has been resolved due to corrective action.

Don Chapman filed a complaint about the accuracy of the headline, language, and statements in the article about individuals who have lost Canadian citizenship, or failed to acquire it, due to gaps in past Canadian citizenship laws.

The original headline read, “’Lost Canadians’ can now get citizenship while update to law faces delays.” The complainant alleged the headline suggests everyone who qualifies as a “lost Canadian” will be able to receive Canadian citizenship.

The complainant also objected to the use of the phrase “so-called” to describe lost Canadians, noting, “To an average reader it implies the issue might have more merit than it deserves.”

Finally, the complainant also raised concern with the fact that the article described lost Canadians as “a term applied to people who were born outside of the country to Canadian parents who were also born in another country.” The complainant points out that the term encompasses a number of categories of individuals who do not have citizenship, including some who were born in Canada.

The news organization responded to the complainant’s concerns about the headline by noting that the use of the word “can” signals to readers that citizenship is a possibility, but that it does not state it is a guarantee. That said, the news organization noted that subsequent versions of the story carried a headline that read, “Ottawa offers some ‘lost Canadians’ citizenship after legislation delayed.”

In response to the concern raised about the use of the phrase “so-called,” the news organization stated that the use of the term was not intended in a derogatory sense, which is supported by other definitions of the term. The news organization, however, updated the piece to remove the use of the word.

The complainant did not respond to the news organization’s comments or the NNC’s invitation for further comment during the complaints process.

In reviewing the matter, the NNC considered standards surrounding headlines, accuracy, and language.

The NNC has consistently stated that headlines are expected to accurately reflect the focus of a story in a concise manner, but are not designed to capture all aspects or details of the issues at hand. In this case, the NNC agrees with the news organization that the first paragraph of the article offers a more comprehensive account of the issues. It also supports the news organization’s update to the headline to more accurately reflect the issue at hand.

While language is expected to be precise and accurate, the NNC supports journalists’ prerogative over specific word choice. In reviewing the use of the phrase “so-called” in context, the NNC did not see grounds to support the view that the statement was derogatory or dismissive in nature. An ordinary reading of the phrase in context indicates that the common name for individuals in the described circumstances, while not literally “lost,” is “lost Canadians.” In this way, it signals to readers the commonly used term. That said, the NNC supports the news organization’s update to remove the term to avoid confusion.

Finally, the NNC understands that the complainant takes issue with the description of lost Canadians in the article as only encompassing a portion of individuals affected. While the NNC recognizes that the description is not exhaustive in that individuals may face a number of different circumstances that qualify them as lost Canadians, in this case, the statement appears to be referring to one group of people who were affected by legislation changes in 2009, as described in the subsequent paragraph in the article. Further, the change to the headline appears to support the complainant’s view that only some lost Canadians may in fact be eligible to receive citizenship.

While we understand that the complainant wishes to see a more comprehensive report on the issue, the NNC did not find grounds to support a complaint about a breach of the journalistic standard of accuracy at this time and considered the matter resolved in light of the updates to the article.