CBC vs. Ezra Levant of Rebel News

Background 

In 2019 and 2021, the Debates Commission denied accreditation to Rebel News. However, both times a Federal Court issued an emergency injunction directing the Commission to grant them accreditation. You can read the 2019 judgement here, and the 2021 judgement here. So, for this Leaders’ Debate, the Commission didn’t bother putting up a fight and accredited 5 journalists from Rebel News. In fact, Michel Cormier, the Executive Director of the Commission, explained that their decision to accredit Rebel News this time was influenced by the advice of counsel who predicted that they would face another legal defeat. 

Okay with that in mind, let’s begin. 

Post-debate mania 

April 16. The French Leaders’ debate quickly became overshadowed by a debate about the line of questioning in the post-debate scrum (watch here). It seemed to have set off some sort of a domino effect that led to the cancellation of the scrum scheduled for the next day. Michel Cormier, the Executive Director of the Commission, only went as far as to say that they did not feel they “can actually guarantee a proper environment for this activity.” 

This vague explanation forced many to come to their own conclusions, including CBC’s chief political correspondent Rosemary Barton, who said, “…these were right-wing people that publish their own agenda and websites, who confronted journalists inside the media centre, who confronted David on his set, who directly and personally confronted me inside the media centre.” Watch more here: Post-debate news conferences cancelled over safety concerns. 

Let’s break down Barton’s statement. 

1. I’ll let you be the judge of the type of news that Rebel News publishes. 
2. I am only aware of two verbal confrontations between members of the media and Ezra Levant, the owner of Rebel News. And in both cases, it appeared that Levant was on the back foot. The first involved Stuart Benson from The Hill Times, who yelled at Levant from across the room on the night of the English debate (watch here). Benson was visibly upset because Rebel News asked 4 questions the day prior. The second involved Ethan Cox from Ricochet Media , who blamed Levant for the cancellation of the media scrum. You can read Ethan’s point of view here. 
3. Barton was correct in that Levant approached David Cochrane, host of POWER & POLITICS. Throughout the week, Cochrane had dismissed Rebel News as a news outlet, claiming that the organization does not live up to journalistic standards. Cochrane went as far as to blame Levant for the cancellation of the scrum, saying that this was the “end product of multiple years of rage farming for narrow political gain and financial benefit for a very small group of people who blew this up today”. You can watch their exchange here with commentary by Levant. Cochrane refused to engage with Ezra and said that he was “LIVE ON AIR”. It was at this moment I learned that I must broaden my definition of “LIVE ON AIR” to include instances where a broadcast is not underway in real-time, as that’s what Cochrane seemed to be referring to. But let’s give the CBC the benefit of the doubt as perhaps they were about to start their broadcast, so Cochrane was justified to dismiss Levant. Nevertheless, Levant left empty handed. 

What was so problematic?

A CBC broadcaster categorized some of the questions as “odd”. But who gets to decide what’s “odd” and what’s not? Who gets to decide which issues are relevant in the election and which are not? One may not agree with Ezra Levant and Rebel News, but they literally had a right to be there, just like the legacy media. 

Cochrane took issue with Rebel News and other “right-wing” news outlets being the first to ask questions. However, other journalists including Émilie Bergeron from La Presse Canadienne, Christian Noël from Radio-Canada, Maïssem Sahraoui from La Converse, and Kate McKenna from CBC News, asked questions in between questions from “right-wing” outlets. Yet, the same people angry with Rebel News and Juno News for being the first ones to the mic were not mad at any other journalists for doing the same thing. 

Was the problem that Rebel News had multiple questions? The number of questions that Rebel News asked were sanctioned by the Commission. Here was the Commission’s rule: “Access to the media availability following the debates will be limited to a maximum of one media representative who is accredited as a reporter/multimedia reporter and one accredited media representative who is accredited as a professional still photographer per media organization.” However, when lawyers representing Rebel News began to scrutinize the implementation of this policy (particularly regarding its application to other news outlets), they put the Commission on notice of their intention to commence litigation. It was at this point that Michel Cormier said: “…rather than devote further resources towards answering your letters and a potential injunction, which is neither necessary nor in the public interest, I will permit Rebel News to have one reporter and one photographer from ‘each of Rebel News’ five divisions’ participate in the scrum for the debates for the 45th general election.” 

Now, the journalists who confronted Levant viewed this as Rebel News “bullying” their way to getting what they want. I disagree. Seeking judicial relief is absolutely justified if you believe your rights are being infringed.