Editorials - Feb. 20, 2026
Distancing from a distance
The Ontario Ministry of Education has now taken over seven school boards (with an eighth on notice), including the two largest boards in the province, in an unprecedented move. Parents and critics are wondering whether this is an end run to a new governance model without trustees.
Minister of Education Paul Calandra claims that the boards are out of control with multi-year deficits and questionable spending, while the boards argue that they are coping with years of underfunding.
Finger pointing aside, Calandra introduced legislation last year that was fast-tracked through parliament to give him additional powers to take over the management of school boards, taking control away from the local trustees. Calandra’s repeated narrative is that the trustees are incompetent while critics suspect that he is trying to erode public confidence in the trustee system.
While our founding publisher, Keith Roulston, has consistently championed local control for municipalities and school boards, the current government under Premier Doug Ford seems to be hell-bent on consolidating decision-making in Toronto, a scenario which seems to cut out rural representation, especially.
Bill 5, Bill 33, Bill 68… the list is growing. Ontarians need to wake up and let their local MPP know that we want to keep decision making in our communities. – DS
Put that manly hand in mine
Amid the sorrow for the victims, the fear (for some, opportunity for others) of vilification of the transgender community, the heroic and selfless actions of some of our youngest Canadians and the confusion as to how it happened in a place where things like this don’t happen, an enduring image of the Tumbler Ridge shooting has been the coming together of staunch political opponents. Putting aside their differences to honour our fallen brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, Prime Minister Mark Carney, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and Governor General Mary Simon were photographed (by Christinne Muschi of The Canadian Press) at a vigil for the victims of one this country’s worst mass shootings. Solemn, emotional and affected by the loss of six people and the injury of dozens more, the leaders stood tall.
In an era of extreme political polarization, increasingly aggressive tactics and counter-tactics and a plain-old lack of compassion, it’s hard to picture President Donald Trump in a sincere moment of empathy alongside political opponents like Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris or even Hillary Clinton. Yet, in Canada we come together when tragedy strikes, we lift up one another and ask how we can help when a brother or sister is suffering. Those on the left and the right alike rub shoulders with one another as they push someone’s car out of the snow together, pull someone from peril or defend their community from danger.
To Poilievre, Carney and Simon - thank you for being the leaders Canada needs in such troubled times and for being mature, intelligent and compassionate enough to see past politics through to humanity as our country mourns the loss of innocent lives taken too soon. – SL
Little by little
When Stephen Colbert disclosed that CBS refused to air his interview with Texas legislator James Talarico, the network pointed to concerns about the “equal-time” rule overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On paper, it may sound like routine legal prudence. In practice, it looks like censorship dressed up as compliance.
The equal-time rule, a relic of mid-20th-century broadcasting, was designed to ensure fairness during election campaigns. But talk shows and news interviews have long operated under exemptions that allow hosts to question political figures without triggering mandatory airtime for opponents. Late-night programs have featured candidates for decades without regulatory chaos ensuing. To suddenly treat such an appearance as a legal hazard strains credibility. What makes the situation more troubling is that Colbert ultimately posted the interview online, beyond the FCC’s broadcast jurisdiction, where it quickly found an audience.
CBS has previously characterized controversial programming decisions as “financial”. Yet shelving a high-profile interview that would likely boost ratings hardly aligns with cost-cutting logic.
The broader concern is the chilling effect. When networks pre-emptively silence political content out of fear of potential scrutiny, they narrow the public square without a regulator ever issuing an order.
Canadians watching this should take note. While the regulatory framework is American, the lesson travels easily across borders. A free press depends not only on laws that permit speech, but on institutions willing to exercise that freedom. Legal caution is understandable. Capitulation is not. If broadcasters wish to maintain public trust, they must offer more than vague references to compliance or cost. They owe viewers transparency and backbone. Otherwise, the line between responsible regulation and quiet censorship will continue to blur. – SBS