Calgary city councillors riled over minister's comments on Supervised Consumption Site

Political football on Supervised Consumption Site Some Calgary city councillors are reiterating any decision to close a Supervised Consumption Site is a provincial responsibility.

Some Calgary city council members are taking issue with comments made by Alberta's addiction minister and are reiterating any decision to close a Supervised Consumption Site at the Sheldon M. Chumir Health Centre is a provincial responsibility.

"The Government of Alberta has failed to take meaningful action on a more comprehensive approach for harm reduction, detox, treatment and recovery," Mayor Jyoti Gondek said in a statement to CTV News.

"Meanwhile, city council has invested an additional $15 million to address transit safety and downtown safety, to deal with the result of provincial inaction.”

Council voted to replace a motion to advocate the province for the site's closure with another motion to have Gondek write the province to ask them to make an informed decision about the future of the site.

The latter motion was then defeated in a 5-9 vote against.

That decision essentially means council is taking no official position on whether or not to close the Supervised Consumption Site (SCS).

Although health care is defined as a provincial responsibility, Addictions Minister Dan Williams had asked councillors to make the decision.

"It is important for the entire city council, not just the mayor, to weigh in via a vote on whether council would like to see the Sheldon Chumir site closed," read a letter from Williams to the mayor earlier this month.

"It is clear Calgarians do not support, nor is it the community's interest to support, new drug sites across the city."

In a statement, Williams said, "City council was given a straightforward opportunity to weigh in on the future of the drug consumption site. Instead, council voted to keep the site as-is. Despite my offer to make changes to services with local input, council's vote has made it clear they support the status quo."

Coun. Courtney Walcott, who represents the area, specifically took issue with those remarks, noting this decision is not in the hands of the city.

"Status quo for their failures? Yeah, I guess we have to be OK with it, because it's (Williams') choice," Walcott said.

"What is the status quo? If he chooses just to let people die on the street, or if he chooses to have people be saved by this service? That is the choice of the government that was elected, not the choice of city council.

"He can deflect all he wants, but this is (his) decision and the end results, they're in his portfolio and on his hands."

Walcott said it's ironic, considering the province always tells the city to "stay in its lane."

"People are tired of being asked to just be compassionate. They're looking for solutions, and so when that happens and that fatigue sets in, sometimes some people will choose the scapegoat option like this," he said.

"It is our communities that have to live with these failures every single day, and it's our communities that are the ones supporting and electing the officials that are making these decisions at the provincial level."

Richard Sutherland, professor of policy studies at Mount Royal University, says there is clearly some "interesting politicking" going on around Williams' statement.

"It's clear the provincial government is not a fan of these sites. I think they still do recognize that public opinion is not in unity on this issue, so this is, I guess, a form of cover for whatever decision," he said.

"Offering (the city) the decision ... you could look at it as a poison pill. Either you're going to make the decision to shut it down or again, the way the province wants to read this is that 'council is fine with how things are.' I don't think that's the case.

"Certainly, there's not good relations with either level of government and neither is going to help the other out in any way."