Business, Federal, The Economy

No Customers = No Business

Leave a comment

It likely bodes ill for the future of print media that often the biggest laugh is not found of the comic pages but among what passes for ‘news’ or ‘reporting’ these days.

Take for example this recent  ‘news report’ from the business pages of The Province:

Rogers Communications Inc. had a weaker quarterly profit and flat revenue due to competition in its wireless and cable divisions, but the Toronto company said Tuesday it has started to see the benefits of cost cutting, including 650 jobs this year. Rogers said its second-quarter net income declined 2.4 per cent to $400 million, or 75 cents per share, off from $410 million a year ago, or 74 cents per share.

One hopes that even at a time when getting government subsidies, government bailouts, favourable labour laws, market protection, restrictions on competition etc is what passes for good management at Canadian businesses, even Rogers competitors would not waste resources to lure Rogers customers away from Rogers when Rogers is doing such a magnificent job of driving Rogers customers to other providers.

Given the fact that managing at Canadian wireless and cable companies is based on maintaining government policies that allow them to charge customers usury rate levels exceeding those paid by customers elsewhere in the world, it is an extremely remote possibility that Rogers fellow beneficiaries of largesse from the federal Conservative government are capable of actual competition and raiding Rogers for customers.

Aside: Yes, it would be very beneficial to Canadians if the federal Conservative Party were to realize/remember that they have a duty of care to all Canadians, not just the bank account of the Conservative Party and Canadian Businesses filling those coffers. But then if Prime Minister Harper were to deny Banks in Canada the right/ability to bleed Canadians to cover excessive salaries and the hundreds of millions of dollars lost through bad management, Harper would not be able to run around the world lecturing world leaders on how wonderful a leader he is and the solidness of Canadian Banks because he is such a magnificent leader.

In this case, the lack of ability of Rogers fellow corporations in the wireless and cable business is a benefit to shareholders as it prevents them wasting resources on uneccessary expenditures.

Competent management would tell you that when dealing with Rogers in terms of customers one need to follow the axiom from The Art of War – “When your enemy is in the process of destroying himself, stay out of his way.”

Although in the case of Rogers it would be more appropriate to apply Woodrow Wilson’s  “Never … murder a man who is committing suicide” .

No competitor could be anywhere near as successful at getting Rogers Customers to switch to another provider as Rogers itself. Rogers might well want to consider that the time to act to retain customers is before Rogers drives them to change to another, any other, provider. Requiring customers to speak to ‘Retention’ after Rogers treatment of customers drives them into changing providers is adding salt to the wound – not to mention pointless.

Rogers customer problem is not that it ticks some customers off and they change providers. That happens to some degree with all providers.

Rogers problem is threefold.

First that their behaviour drives customers to the point of anger that “I don’t care if it costs $1500.00, its worth twice that not to have to deal with those @@%&###”

Secondly that while other providers may have customers switch to another provider, those customers will (and have) returned to the provider they dropped. Rogers provokes customers to the point that “I will never, NEVER, deal with Rogers again” with the customers sticking to their vow to never deal with Rogers again.

Thirdly, when people make enquires of others as to what provider to use the growing pool of Never, Ever Rogers ex-customers  is telling them just that: “Never, Ever Rogers” and providing them with horror stories of the way Rogers treats those it allows to give Rogers their hard earned cash, nickel and dimeing them to death and them *BLEEPing* all over them.

The question Rogers must answer is whether they have the ability to change their policies of customer alienation before they reach the tipping point where they cannot stop their customer base from continuing to erode. Which would see Rogers continually shrinking as customers go ABR (Anywhere But Rogers) until the ABR customers service Rogers into the corporate dustbin.

Consider, Hmmm

Mike the Inventor

Leave a comment

I met Mike within a few days of moving to Abbotsford two decades ago.

My first action upon taking up residence in Abbotsford was to get a Library card. After all, what could possibly be more important upon arrival in a new community than to secure one’s access to the local Library? As a bonus I got access to materials in all the Fraser Valley Regional Libraries.

My second action was to purchase a pool pass so I could swim lengths. I swim lengths pretty much on a daily basis; Mike is a lifeguard; it would have been hard not to have met.

Since Mike does on occasion stutter it was fortunate for me that I have a policy of being nice and polite to any individual who I may find myself depending on to save my life. The reason I say fortunate is that being polite and engaging in conversation with Mike allowed me to discover that the little patience that was required in listening to what Mike had to say was amply rewarded by the interesting things he had to say.

I haven’t had the chance to converse with Mike much in recent years as he guards mostly at the Matsqui wave pool and I had stopped using the Matsqui pool when Matsqui had become much less length swimmer friendly. Choosing to drive past Matsqui on my way to the length swimming accommodating and friendly confines of the pool at the Abbotsford Recreation Centre. So I was pleased when guard rotation brought him to the ARC pool for several months.

I cannot remember exactly how it was that we arrived at discussing the change in First Aid protocol that had tourniquet use out and packing the wound and pressure as the new standard. But that is where we arrived at.

Mike commented that he had a situation at MRC with a woman with a little child, a slip and the need to deal with a wound that had him wishing for a third hand to keep pressure on the wound will able to deal with the child and a possible head trauma for the woman.

So he had invented a device to keep pressure on a wound and free up both hands to deal with other injuries or problems. Better yet, when he had the opportunity he had gone on-line and shown me video of the device on youtube.

So today Mike enquired as to how I was and in reply I sang my appreciation of the Air-conditioner faerie who had dropped an air-conditioner at my place last year and how that was permitting me to sleep while the heat was interfering with the sleep of some people I knew.

Mike commented that he had invented a device to provide air-conditioning and that when he had the opportunity he would show it to me. And………that he had invented many devices because he loved to invent things. Which had me thinking “what a great throwaway line”; and “I know an inventor”; and wondering if there was anything he could invent to make life easier for the homeless.

Our conversation about Mike’s inventions and inventing reminded me that I wanted to ask his permission to write about the local inventor I had known for years as a lifeguard and only recently discovered his ability and passion to invent.

Mike was surprised (and pleased) with the request for permission to share the video of his wound device.

I asked “how could I not share the fact that Abbotsford has an Inventor and that he had invented a device for use in First Aid for wound care?”

If you want to see the video of the device just click on the link to Mike Fitzpatrick’s Hemorrhage Control Device.

Mike the Inventor. As Mr Spock would say, “Fascinating”.

behaviour, Consider, Municipal

Who Would Have Thought???

Leave a comment

Abbotsford has a Character Council??????

“The Abbotsford Character Council was established in spring of 2011 following the Abbotsford Leadership Forum which took place on April 26th, 2011. At this forum, community leaders worked together to establish a common language and a vision for the future of our city; one that places high value on the practice and promotion of good character” – excerpted from the Abbotsford Character Council web page

Who could of guessed…….although, a Character Council does fit right in with trendy organizational must haves such as a highfalutin, buzzword laden Mission Statement.

And why should taxpayers expect their City Council [et al] to focus on old fashioned ideas such as safe, drivable roads or worry about the health of its poorest, most vulnerable citizens or astute, frugal spending of taxpayers monies rather than ‘cultural gardens’, giant strawberry (raspberry?) sculptures in a roundabout, a Character Council, council’s egos or the subsidizing of profession hockey teams and owners?

Character:     the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing; moral or ethical quality

Good:             satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree; of high quality; excellent; right; proper; fit.

Armed with definitions for good and character……..we need consider a few of the actions taken by the City of Abbotsford under the auspices of the majority of the current council.

One test of ‘good character’ is what you do when you want to take an action but there is a law against taking said action.

The BC Local Government Act contains a prohibition of municipal governments investing in or subsidizing private businesses.

The WHA’s Chilliwack Bruins relocated to Victoria because Chilliwack’s Mayor and Council turned down the Bruins request for a yearly $250,000 subsidy to enable them to remain in Chilliwack. Chilliwack’s Mayor and Council citing the provisions in the Local Government Act against subsidizing a private business, in this case the Bruins.

When Abbotsford’s Council, in order to save face by luring a hockey team to Abbotsford’s empty Entertainment and Sports Centre, was faced with the need to subsidize the Heat ownership for 10 years for the losses incurred playing in Abbotsford……… Council circumvented the law and made Abbotsford Taxpayers liable to the Heats ownership for up to $57 million’

            Aside: Hmmmmm? I wonder how long it will be before Abbotsford Council, in light of                    the fact the annual subsidy is (for now) closer to $2 million rather than the $5.7 million            maximum, begin claiming to be saving taxpayers $3.7 million a year?

Ethics and character lie in obeying the intent and spirit of the law as opposed to circumventing the law for ones convenience. Consider the following:

The news is full of reports of people being defrauded out of their money, to the point of losing their life savings, by scams.

With my background in accounting and business it would be easy (I have a few specific approaches I favour in mind) to construct an……’investment opportunity’……that would circumvent the fraud laws, enriching myself and my bank account at the expense of the victimized investors – in a perfectly legal manner.

Siggghhhh, the ethics, the character my parents instilled in me tells me it is not whether I can circumvent the law and get rich with no legal consequences, but whether circumventing the law and reaching into people’s pockets to relieve them of their cash is ethical behaviour. Further,  the ethics and character my parents instilled in me tells me that the difference between breaking a law and circumventing the law is simply that circumventing the law avoids the penalty, the negative consequences, of simply breaking of the law.

As much as poverty may grind on me, ethics and character will not permit me to rationalize or justify circumventing the intent and spirit of fraud laws to enrich myself.

Under the ethics and character my parents and the community of Georgetown Ontario instilled in me it is unethical, a sign of bad character for Abbotsford’s Council to circumvent any law, not just a law designed to protect the taxpayers of Abbotsford from Council wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money subsidizing a private business and the owners of that business.

While considering ethics, character and the AESC there is the recent admission by the City Manager that City Hall had always expected the Entertainment and Sports Centre to lose $2,000,000 a year, even as Council was promising taxpayers a profit of $500,000 a year, in order to get taxpayers to vote to let council to build  Abbotsford’s Great White Elephant Centre. While saying anything needed to get elected or win a referendum may be politics and politicians as usual, it is neither ethical nor behaviour of good character.

Then there is the matter of Harm Reduction; a matter where the bottom is quite literally life or death.

A matter were the actions, yea or nay, of a community directly results in lives saved or lost and has a direct effect of the health of the community – the whole community – places a duty of care on all citizens requiring them to put aside what they believe they know, what it is they want to believe about Harm Reduction and their personal preferences, to determine what experience demonstrates the facts to be and to base one’s decision on the facts.

Ignoring the facts, that Harm Reduction saves lives, gets people into treatment sooner and improves the health of not just the community of those who use substances but of the entire community – devalues human life and imposes a death sentence on some of those who use substances to self medicate.

Clutching at straws, grabbing onto any excuse in order to ignore that the facts, experience and evidence are all against you…….is behaviour that substantially lacks character.

            Aside: before you utter or think the words “he is just a bleeding heart” let me state the       my thoughts on  matters of mental illness, substance use and homelessness    underwent significant re-examination and modification when mental illness and homelessness brought me face to face with Reality, shattering smug myth, judgment and wilful  ignorance.   

Let us conclude our considerations with a clash between greedy self interest versus ethics, character, consideration of others and the health of our community as a whole.

On July 1, 2012 City Council changed security contractors, not because the previous security firm was not doing a good job – it was – but to save money. These saving will be achieved through paying those working  for the new security firm wages at or close to minimum wage.

Unfortunately, minimum wage does not provide enough income to cover the expenses of living frugally in Abbotsford. $10.50 is considerably under the $15.50 – $16.41 that is calculated to be the hourly wage necessary to be able to live frugally, but with a degree of comfort in Abbotsford. A ‘living wage‘.

It is unethical for the City of Abbotsford (government period) to directly or indirectly pay someone performing work for the City (government) a hourly wage that is not sufficient for them to be able to afford safe, healthy housing; food; basic necessities etc.

Paying such a wage, at the expense of the wellbeing of people, to save money in order to pay council its automatic yearly salary increase and management their exorbitant and unconscionable raises descends into an area of unethical and characterless such that council and management must cease to sully the City of Abbotsford with their presence and resign.

Unless they apply the same rules to themselves as applies to the least among those who serve the City.

20 hours a week times $10.50 per hour times 52 weeks a year = 20(10.50)(52) = $10,920.

40 hours a week times $10.50 per hour times 52 weeks a year = 40(10.50)(52) = $21,840.

Under the same wage rules that council and city management consider adequate for contracted workers council should be paid $10,920 a year and managers should get $21,840 a year.

With the savings realized using those wage rates for council and managers the City could afford to pay those contracted to perform tasks on the City’s behalf a wage sufficient to live, frugally, on.

Seems to be ethical and fair vis-a-vis council and managements behaviour in this matter; and would – hopefully – encourage the development of character in council and management.

Council, city management and their sycophants may even come to appreciate that we were not instructed to “do unto others” but to “do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves”.

Hmmm, Media

NOW I Understand!!

Leave a comment

I had used Rogers as my wireless provider for over 6 years and while Rogers may not have wowed me with their customer service they did nothing that would explain why the mention of Rogers to ex-Rogers customers evokes a response like that of waving the proverbial red cape in front of a bull.

It has taken Rogers less than a week to provide me a clear understanding of how it is that Rogers evokes a passionate distaste that borders on hate.

Rogers has definitely put me solidly in the ‘anyone but Rogers camp’. To the point that although I would like to keep the phone number I have had for the last 6+ years I will be quite willing to get a new phone number if that is what is required to ensure I do not have to deal with Rogers past the point of making the payments necessary to reduce my account balance to zero and sever me from the Albatross this is Rogers.

The Path that finds me sitting at my computer setting down this cautionary tale began at the end of November 2011 when the Cavalier I was driving was in need of expensive repairs such that it proved a wiser financial move to sell the Cavalier to the crusher and purchase the 1989 Cougar I currently drive for $1,000.00.

One of the most insidious aspects of poverty is the constant grinding away of the spirit and hope. One of the ways poverty grinds at you is the fact that you never have an opportunity to set any money aside for the little financial emergencies that are part of living. You are constantly one little mishap from homelessness.

A major financial disaster such as my car will, 99.99999999999999% of the time, result in homelessness. Immediately if you replace the car, several months down the road if you do not replace the car.

Having enough friends to contribute to the formation a pool of cash to lend to keep you housed and buy you the time to get your finances back up to poverty from bankrupt is the only way for the poor to survive.

In the scramble to get transportation and secure housing bills such as internet and wireless get bumped down the priority pay list. Putting you in arrears and struggling to slowly bring accounts current.

I did not try to hide the stretched state of my finances from service providers and have, through strict budget discipline, managed to go from three months in arrears to one month (plus/minus).

Other than Rogers my service providers have been patient and helpful as I work on bringing all accounts into current – even if it is a slow, slow process.

In order to avoid a service interruption I had arranged for payment to be made Friday; a few days late because it is Friday I get paid.

Wednesday my phone service was suspended and my calls were redirected and I found myself dumped into a computer voice options land where none of options offered was appropriate and none of the options offered gets you a live human being to talk to.

Leaving you on the phone with a computer system that is demanding payment, telling me I have a payment agreement on record and that Rogers had not processed the payment I made on the Friday 12 days.

I manage to use a……shortcut……to get connected to a actual person in credit services.

Who proceeded to tell me I needed to make a payment now in order to get service restored. I explained that until I am paid on Friday I have no money; that I had spoken with a Rogers representative and made arrangements for the Friday payment because I had no money until I got paid Friday and wanted to avoid a service disruption.

When I enquired why, with a payment agreement having been made service had still been interrupted I was told I needed to make a payment immediately to get service restored.

I explained that the unexpected and large expense of replacing my car had blow a large hole in my budget, that it was taking time to catch up on bills I was forced to defer and that the reason there was a payment agreement on file was because I got paid on Friday at which point I would have money to make the agreed upon payment – and why, with a payment agreement in place had my service been interrupted.

I was told that it would take at least 5 days to process my payment and – perhaps – restore services and that if I waited to Friday to pay it could take longer because of the weekend. I once again stated that I had no money to make a payment until Friday – when I was paid. That was why i had a payment agreement in place for a payment to be made on Friday.

He then suggested that I needed to increase the size of the payment set for Friday. I reminded him about how tight my budget was and that that was why that amount had been set for the payment and why I had no money to make a payment until I was paid on Friday.

He started in about how it was necessary to increase the size of the payment to bring the account current right away.

I reminded him – again – about the tightness of my budget etc.etc. etc.

When he returned to the need to make a larger payment to bring the account current I reminded him that, as stated previously, my finances were to tight to do this. He then suggested I use a credit card to pay the outstanding balance. I thanked him for making it clear that I needed to reduce my wireless costs in order to pay what I owed Rogers in as timely a manner as possible, thanked him and got off the phone.

Whereupon I promptly headed off to find another provider. And although the cost of services is about the same, I save close to $30 a month because my new provider does not nickel and dime me to death to the tune of $30, as did Rogers.

That weekend I phoned to inform Rogers I was accepting their termination of our relationship. Credit services told me I had to talk to customer services. Customer services said no I needed to talk to credit services. Someone at credit services finally told me I had to call back during the and talk the retention team. Retention team? Now there is a rather amusing concept. And would it not be simpler to treat customers with courtesy rather than trying to retain them after infuriating them?

I did make the payment as I had agreed to.

I phoned during the following week to make sure that the account was no longer in service and to say that I would be paying the balance owing, but with my tight financial state and the fact I would be giving priority to those service providers who chose to be understanding and work with me it would likely be close to the end of 2012 before the full balance was paid.

Subsequent to the final call I was able to make another payment.

This week (July 10, 2012) I received a call from Rogers about payment of the outstanding balance of $185. The statement that I did not owe $185 evoked the immediate threat of having the account assigned to a collection agency. At which point I hung up and composed the letter below, sending it to Customer Service and appropriate Rogers executives.

Ironically, as I sitting at the computer composing the letter to Rogers, I used online banking to pay my wireless bill from my new provider.

 

……stay tooned – we are talking Rogers after all……

On June 6, 2012 Rogers terminated our six year service provider/service consumer relationship by suspending phone service, unilaterally abrogating the payment agreement agreed to by Rogers and myself.

Attempts to speak to someone at Rogers dumped me into the computer automated disservice were I was consistently informed there was a payment agreement on record for my account, followed by demands for payment.

I escaped and spoke to an actual person.

My inquiry as to why Rogers abrogated the payment plan was met with a request for immediate payment. When I explained that the reason there was a payment agreement on the account, with payment to be made on Friday, was that Friday was payday, the Rogers representative responded requesting immediate payment. When it became clear that no matter what approach I took I was unable to get the Rogers representative to understand that it was not possible to make a payment Wednesday when I was paid Friday. I thanked him and said I would make the payment as per agreement on Friday.

This elicited the threat that if I waited to Friday, rather than make an immediate payment, it could well be late the next week before my phone service could be restored. The statement I would have to take that chance was met with the statement that making the payment larger or paying the entire balance would also prove beneficial in the restoration of phone services.

So it was that I found myself explaining to yet another Rogers employee that the need to fund an unexpected $1,000 expense in order to keep a car on the road coupled with being on disability, thus having a fixed and limited income, meant it was only through strict budgeting and disciplined spending that I would be able – over time – to bring my accounts current. That the payment agreed to was the maximum available in my budget.

It was suggested that in order to ensure phone service was restored and to avoid future service interruptions I should pay the entire amount. When reminded that I did not have that amount, it was suggested I put it on a credit card.

I chose not to comment on what that suggestion said about Rogers business ethics, saying simply that I could not do that, thank you and hanging up.

Whereupon I promptly went in search of another service provider.

I phoned on the weekend to inform Rogers I was accepting their termination of me as a customer. After being bounced between credit services and customer relations, before I was cut off, I was told I had to call back on a weekday and talk to the client retention team. A rather amusing concept.

I did make the payment as I had agreed to.

I phoned during the following week to make sure that the account was no longer in service and to say that I would be paying the balance owing, but with my tight financial state and the fact I would be giving priority to those service providers who chose to be understanding and work with me it would likely be close to the end of 2012 before the full $140.10 was paid.

Subsequent to the final call I was able to make a $20 payment, reducing the outstanding balance to $120.10.

This week I received a call from Rogers about payment of the outstanding balance of $185. The statement that I did not owe $185 evoked the immediate threat of having the account assigned to a collection agency.

Given healthy boundaries, I hung up once the threat was uttered.

This letter is to 1) set out what has transpired to date, 2) provide copies of my account statement at the point in time Rogers terminated our relationship, 3) record payments made and not reflected on the statement and 4) once again state to Rogers that the $120.10 will be paid as financial circumstances permit, albeit with preference given to the service providers being supportive of the struggle to recover from the car repair. Despite the anger I feel vis-a-vis Rogers’ threatening phone calls.

Rest assured the $120.10 will be paid. Regretfully, deeply so as it requires a longer relationship with Rogers, financial reality is that, whether to Rogers or a collection agency, finding the funds to pay the remaining $120.10 will require financial discipline and time.

 

 

James W. Breckenridge

 

************************************************

Addiction, behaviour, Hmmm, Issues, Municipal, Provincial

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

Leave a comment

Do we need more detox beds in Fraser Health?  Yes.

Is the (un)effectiveness of Fraser Health’s mobile detox programs, succinctly summed up in the words of those seeking  detox: “they [Fraser Health] are not looking for people needing detox, they [Fraser Health] are looking for people already detoxed”? Yes.

Are Fraser Health. our Provincial and Federal governments doing a poorer and poorer job of providing the support needed for people to find recovery and wellness even as our understanding of what supports are needed grows? Yes.

Does this excuse Abbotsford City Council’s childish ‘I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I do not get my own way’ attitude? No.

Does this excuse Abbotsford City Council’s ‘I am taking my toys and going home’ threats? No.

Does this provide an excuse for Abbotsford City Council to continue to ignore the facts about substance use and Harm Reduction? No.

For those who are seeking any excuse to justify their dogmatic opposition to harm reduction? I refer you to the words of Councillor John Smith: “If they aren’t going to give us detox . . . then quite frankly, [the harm reduction issue] is going nowhere with me.”

Then we have the sophistry of “…suggested that if Fraser Health was truly committed to providing harm reduction services in Abbotsford the first thing it should do is step up and fund the Warm Zone.”

I do not recall Council providing leadership, beating the bushes or pressuring senior levels of government to raise funds to keep the Warm, Zone open and operating. Now suddenly they are publically supportive of keeping the warm zone open, concerned about the consequences for those who depend on the Warm Zones services?

But then when the facts, experience and evidence are all against you and you are left clutching at straws, any excuse will do.

City Council’s finger pointing at Fraser Health on this matter brings to mind the quintessential Mom question, ‘if Fraser Health was jumping off the Lion’s Gate Bridge would you jump as well?’

Although……that does bring to mind the question: “what do you call the river bottom under the Lion’s Gate Bridge being littered with the bodies of municipal politicians, provincial and federal politicians and want-to-be ‘same old’ politicians and executives from BC Health? ”

A solid step towards good governance and healthy priorities by municipal, provincial and federal governments.

Detox, the Warm Zone – what healthcare is council advocating Fraser Health cut from services provided to the citizens of Abbotsford? Because when you call on Fraser Health (or any Health Region) to spend money on services, capital projects etc not included in their budgets, you are calling on the Health Regions to cut existing (budgeted) items to free up the funds to pay for the new (non budgeted) spending.

So what healthcare does council want to cut to pay for Detox and the Warm Zone?

Mayor and Council need to remember that Fraser Health can only spend the money the provincial government gives them. Remember that, unlike Abbotsford City Council,  Fraser Health cannot simply create a water crisis and scare/panic taxpayers into borrowing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to cover past, present and future misspending.

As to council’s sudden concern about detox……on my list of programs and services (including appropriate, affordable housing)  required in Abbotsford to help people achieve recovery and wellness, detox is well down my list of priorities. It is a waste of money to push people through detox and treatment without providing the support programs, services and housing that would aid them to remain in recovery more than a few days, weeks or months as is currently the case (less than 5% are substance free one year after ‘graduation’ from treatment)..

The reality of addiction and substance use is reflected in Councillor MacGregor’s statement that the issue of drug abuse needed a “layered” approach and Councillor Barkman stressing there is no “silver bullet” to substance abuse and that building relationships is critical to helping people escape addiction.

Harm: (noun) physical [of or pertaining to the body] injury or mental damage; hurt. (verb used with object) to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt.

Reduction: (noun) the act of reducing [bringing down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number etc.] or the state of being reduced [to become lessened] .

I will be dropping a dictionary off at the mayor’s office to facilitate and encourage council to seek facts and understanding about what Harm Reduction is and is not – and to express my support for Harm Reduction and making Abbotsford a healthier place for ALL who live in the City.

Should you have a dictionary you would like to spare for council………