Editorials - Nov. 14, 2025
Let down
Canada has lost its measles elimination status, according to the Pan American Health Organization. After almost 30 years of keeping the virus in check, Canada was stripped of its designation, the only country in the Americas to lose the status. The large, multi-province outbreak that started in October of 2024 with sustained measles transmission for more than 12 months is the reason for the loss of the designation. Public health officials say that this should be a wake-up call for the country, with the under-vaccinated communities being the primary target of the virus.
And we didn’t just lose the designation, we did it in a fairly significant way with more than 5,000 cases, including the deaths of two infants. In a developed country with access to free vaccines that are available universally, the lack of vaccination that caused this outbreak is troubling.
Religious communities and internet influencers have muddied the waters for what is a standard procedure and viewed not only as safe, but necessary, by the bulk of parents to prevent the measles. The measles virus is portrayed by these sources as a harmless, childhood illness, almost a rite of passage, and for many children it is, but it can be debilitating and occasionally lethal as well. With a safe protection against it through immunization, it is baffling the number of parents who are willing to gamble with their children’s health. – DS
No surprises
A move uncommon, though not exactly unheard of either, MP Chris d’Entremont crossed the aisle last week, turning his back on Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives in favour of Mark Carney’s ruling Liberals. He has since pointed the finger at Poilievre’s “negative” leadership and “frat house” atmosphere aimed solely at “tearing down”, adding that an alleged aggressive confrontation on his decision sealed the deal.
In the days since, Poilievre has called his former colleague a liar, adding that he will fit right in with the Liberals. He has yet to create a Donald Trump-esque nickname for d’Entremont for House of Commons and social media usage, but this editorial board respectively submits, for Poilievre’s consideration, “d’Entredict Arnold.”
Cracks from this story are now spreading in every direction. Talking heads have said that Poilievre’s grip on the party has slipped and that his days are numbered, while others still have pontificated that more aisle-crossers lie in wait. From the other side, some feel d’Entremont has bait-and-switched his constituents (many vote for the party, not the man/woman) and yet this individualism - d’Entremont changing course with a party he no longer agrees with - feels like the antidote to tired party politics that resemble a cult more than a democracy rooted in the ability to make one’s own decisions, regardless of party affiliation.
And while Poilievre has denounced allegations of the toxic bro-culture d’Entremont describes, Poilievre’s critics are hardly surprised. He has been hateful, negative, smug and entitled from the jump - the only difference is that voters liked that about him for a time. Not now.
Is Poilievre’s house of cards tumbling down, or has he shed a bad egg whose loyalty he never truly had? That remains to be seen, but, to the adults in the room, the vote on Carney’s first budget is one step in a much longer journey as real threats lurk. The time, it seems, for three-word slogans is over and the work of governance must begin. – SL
Everything in its right place
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to reject a challenge to same sex marriage is a rare moment of relief. It reaffirms a basic right many feared this court might undo and it reminds us how fragile progress can be when rights depend on the politics of the moment.
Canada’s path to marriage equality was different, but the implications of this ruling reach us too. When rights erode elsewhere, the shockwaves are felt here. The United States has seen freedoms reversed in recent years, and the dread that the same could happen to marriage equality was real. With the court’s conservative tilt, even long-settled precedents seemed at risk. The case brought by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licences to same sex couples, tested whether the court would reopen Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that recognized same sex marriage as a constitutional right. Its decision not to do so keeps that precedent intact. But the fact that such a challenge reached this stage shows how unstable fundamental rights can become when legal institutions are swayed by ideology.
Canadians take comfort in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but should not mistake comfort for permanence. Rights require defence. Legal protections exist within political and cultural climates that can shift quickly, and while Canada’s legal foundations are stronger in some respects, they too depend on the will of citizens to uphold them.
The refusal to hear the case is a victory, though a cautious one. It affirms equality without expanding it, and it postpones a fight that may one day return. From Canada, we watch not as detached observers but as neighbours reminded that justice must be guarded. – SBS