Call it what you will, at the end of the day what we are here for is we want to make sure that Canadians live good, healthy lives, so you want to call it reducing harm while not using the term. The issue is, does the term become divisive, as opposed to integrative. If it is becoming divisive, you'll end up causing more harm by the term itself.
Personally, and I think what we work on is, what the person needs at this point. Whether it's a naloxone overdose or a kit, whether it's a needle exchange, or whether it is actually a reduced risk product or an easier access into treatment, or both, it's exactly, as you said, Ms. Fry, a continuum, and the dichotomy that we've created may inadvertently actually lead to net harm to all of society.
I think we have to use terms and labels appropriately to help further the issue of positive health for people, rather than getting caught up in whether it's harm reduction or not. As we know, these conditions, including addictions, are defined by criteria.