A new drug, daraxonrasib, doubles survival time for people with pancreatic cancer.Danielle Villasana/Reuters
Life and death
Re “Drug that could extend lives of Canadians with pancreatic cancer remains out of reach for patients” (July 8): Oncologists and patients who are being denied access to unapproved cancer treatments should take lessons from AIDS activists and their doctors. In the 1980s, these patients and doctors demonstrated at pharmaceutical company offices, protested at hospitals, took over the opening stage at an international AIDS conference in Montreal, imported drugs themselves from the United States and established a system of sharing them. The Emergency Drug Release Program, as it was then known, capitulated and the AIDS drugs flowed.
The government finally accepted that the dying patient alone is best suited to decide what risks to take in exchange for the possible benefit of a life-altering or lifesaving medicine. That is not the state’s job.
The current federal Special Access Program for medications should join with doctors and patients to pressure American pharmaceutical companies to release unapproved drugs as a matter of compassion for desperately ailing cancer patients.
Philip Berger MD; Toronto
True profits
Re “A company’s priority is making money for shareholders. Canada has forgotten that” (Report on Business, July 6): This article presents a false choice.
Of course companies need to make money. Without profits, businesses cannot invest, innovate, create jobs, or reward shareholders. Profitability is essential. But profitability is not why corporations exist. The real question is what companies exist to do, and how profits enables them to fulfill that purpose.
Canadian corporate law recognizes that directors act in the best interests of the corporation, not exclusively its shareholders, and may consider stakeholder interests. Business practice reflects this evolution: 40 per cent of Canada’s largest public companies – the TSX 60 – have articulated a social purpose. Companies that define and act on their social purpose are better positioned to create long-term shareholder value.
The debate should not be about purpose versus profit. Profit is essential, but it is not the purpose of the corporation. Profit is the outcome of fulfilling a corporation’s purpose well.
Coro Strandberg, chair and co-founder, Canadian Purpose Economy Project; president, Strandberg Consulting
Where’s the line?
Re “Canada should deepen its ties with Saudi Arabia” (Opinion, July 8): Thomas Juneau alludes to the diplomatic falling out between Canada and Saudi Arabia in August, 2018, but he glosses over it. He fails to detail Saudi Arabia’s expulsion of Canada’s ambassador, freezing trade with Canada, suspending flights from here and removing thousands of Saudi scholarship students from Canadian schools. All this was done in response to a tweet by Canada’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning the treatment of a brother and sister in Saudi Arabia.
Shortly thereafter, in October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident journalist employed by The Washington Post, was killed and dismembered by agents of the Saudi government at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.
I realize that our Prime Minister’s philosophy in foreign affairs is that we take the world as we find it, not as we wish it to be. But is there not a line which Canada will not cross?
John J. Reilly Victoria
Facing opposition
Re “The humiliation of Pierre Poilievre continues” (Opinion, July 9): Pierre Poilievre blew a huge lead in the polls in the face of circumstances that required the electorate to choose a leader they felt capable of representing Canada during a difficult time in our relationship with our southern neighbour. In addition to this lack of confidence, Mr. Poilievre proved to be unlikeable. His aggressive, mean-spirited style was viewed by many as un-Canadian.
Had there been a prominent, capable Conservative who wanted his job, a leadership challenge would already be in process or a change completed. Mr. Poilievre should accept thanks for his public service and leave on his own terms rather than continue to face a gradual erosion of confidence and an ultimate ouster.
Mark Roberts Gananoque, Ont.
Homing in on an issue
Re “Canada’s housing-supply crisis isn’t over, new construction still needed, CMHC CEO says” (Report on Business, July 7): Affordability is the problem, not supply. Many low-income people can’t afford a down-payment to purchase a home. Young people starting out, in particular, need to live near areas with employment.
There are many places for sale, but nearly all of them in urban areas are far more costly than an average person can afford. If banks would lend to lower-income people with proof of steady, growing income and stable jobs, it would be helpful.
Sheldon Shepherd Toronto
Edmontonians unite
Re: “In Edmonton, a covenant to defy democracy” (Editorial, July 8): In my childhood in Detroit in the 1950s, such covenants were common, shamefully used to exclude Jews, Blacks and Asians from “restricted” white neighbourhoods.
At the same time, when cities try to plunk down an oversized housing project in the middle of a neighbourhood of two-storey houses, resistance is understandable. Bad planning invites NIMBY pushback.
We all need decent housing. With sensible, sensitive planning, there should room for all of us in our cities.
Elaine Bander Montreal
Municipal democracy does not mean that zoning regulations should override private law rights governing the use of particular properties. Property owners can refuse to sell to developers or anyone else. They also have a common law right to agree among themselves to restrict the use of their property for the benefit of another, or for the mutual benefit of a group of properties.
There are many circumstances where such restrictions are eminently sensible (for example, to prevent industrial development in a residential neighbourhood). The Land Titles Act gives the court (not a municipal council) limited discretionary ability to remove a restrictive covenant which is not in the public interest. There are court cases pending which will test the extent of this power in particular circumstances.
Entering into a restrictive covenant is a serious decision, which may increase or decrease the value of the affected property. But deciding to do so is not anti-democratic – much as it may irritate local planners and developers.
David Phillip Jones Edmonton
Milkshake memories
Re “Restaurateur Francis Deck ran the legendary Toronto diner chain Fran’s” (Obituaries, July 6): The obituary of Francis (Fran) Deck, whose family started the iconic Fran’s Restaurant, brought back fond memories. My father took me and my siblings to Fran’s on a fairly regular basis, sometimes before attending a Maple Leafs game or occasionally after visiting our grandmother. In addition to the banquet burger, the indelible memory is of having a milkshake served in a tin. It is really the only way to have one.
J.D.M. Stewart Toronto
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com