As a light November snow dusted Calgary’s downtown streets last week, I watched a line form outside the city’s supervised consumption site on Sheldon Chumir Centre. Three people huddled against the cold, waiting for the doors to open. Across the street, a local business owner swept his sidewalk while casting frustrated glances toward the facility.
This scene captures the tension that has now exploded into Calgary’s upcoming mayoral race, where candidate Chinenye Okolie has called for the immediate closure of the city’s only supervised consumption site, igniting fierce debate throughout the city.
“These sites have become a magnet for crime, drug dealing, and unsafe streets,” Okolie told supporters at a campaign event in Kensington on Tuesday. “The residents and businesses around these areas deserve better.” His campaign has released a six-point plan focused on shifting resources toward recovery-based approaches instead.
The controversy highlights a growing divide in how Calgarians view harm reduction versus abstinence-based approaches to addressing the opioid crisis that claimed 579 lives in the city last year, according to Alberta Health Services data.
Sarah Hoffman, former NDP health minister who helped establish the site in 2018, defended the facility’s purpose. “Supervised consumption sites don’t just prevent overdose deaths – they create pathways to treatment and recovery that wouldn’t otherwise exist,” she explained during a phone interview from Edmonton.
The site, which averages about 130 visits daily according to Alberta Health’s quarterly reports, has become a flashpoint in the debate about how Calgary should address its growing substance use crisis. Local business associations report a 26% increase in complaints about disorder in the surrounding blocks since 2019.
What’s often lost in these heated exchanges is the complexity behind the statistics. Calgary Police Service data shows that while calls for service increased by 32% in the immediate vicinity after the site opened, overall crime rates haven’t risen proportionally throughout the community.
“There’s no simple answer here,” explained Dr. Monty Ghosh, an addiction specialist who works with vulnerable populations across Alberta. “We need a comprehensive approach that includes harm reduction alongside robust treatment options, housing supports, and mental health services.”
For residents like Marina Kowalski, who lives three blocks from the site, the issue isn’t theoretical. “I’ve had to call the police twice this month because of people using drugs in my back alley,” she told me while walking her dog near the facility. “But I also know three people who got into treatment because they connected with workers at the site. It’s complicated.”
The political battle lines are being drawn as Mayor Jyoti Gondek has maintained a measured stance, calling for “evidence-based approaches” without explicitly defending or condemning the site. City council remains divided, with seven councillors expressing support for review of the site’s operations in a recent committee meeting.
What’s particularly striking about Calgary’s debate is how it mirrors similar conflicts playing out across Canada. From Toronto’s ongoing disputes over shelter hotels to Vancouver’s evolving approaches in the Downtown Eastside, cities are grappling with the balance between harm reduction, public safety, and recovery-focused interventions.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s government has already signaled its preference, shifting provincial policy toward recovery-oriented systems and away from harm reduction approaches. Last year’s provincial budget redirected $19 million from harm reduction initiatives toward recovery-based programming.
“The provincial government has made their position clear,” said Dr. Rebecca Haines-Saah, a public health researcher at the University of Calgary. “But municipalities still have significant influence over how these policies play out on their streets. That’s why this mayoral race matters so much.”
For the business community near the site, patience is wearing thin. The Beltline Business Improvement Area reports that 38% of their members have considered relocating due to concerns about public disorder, according to their 2023 member survey.
“We’ve had three businesses close on this block in the past year,” said James Fong, who owns a convenience store near the site. “People are scared to come shop here. I understand the need to help people, but something has to change.”
Advocates for the site point to its life-saving outcomes – staff reversed over 700 overdoses last year without a single death on premises, according to operational reports. They argue that pushing vulnerable people back into alleys and public washrooms will only increase public disorder and death rates.
As Calgary voters prepare to head to the polls next month, the debate around the supervised consumption site represents more than just a single facility – it reflects fundamental questions about the city’s approach to complex social issues, public health, and community safety.
Walking away from the site that snowy morning, I noticed a young woman exit the building, pull her jacket tight against the cold, and begin the long walk toward the bus stop. The controversy surrounding these facilities often obscures the individual lives at stake in these policy debates – something voters will need to consider as they assess competing visions for their city’s future.
