Friends of Medicare concerned by overdose prevention site closures
By Lethbridge Herald on January 6, 2026.
Alexandra Noad
LETHBRIDGE HERALD
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Friends of Medicare are expressing their alarm and concern about the closure of many supervised consumption sites province wide, saying it will not only affect those who rely on the services to survive, but the impact will spread to those needing emergency services and hospital care.
Chris Gallaway, executive director of Friends with Medicare says last month Edmonton saw the highest number of overdose deaths.
In the same month, on Dec. 16, the supervised consumption site at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton closed permanently.
Friends of Medicare is concerned about the governments one or the other stance when it comes to supporting recovery and harm reduction.
Gallaway says the government is treating harm reduction and recovery as polar opposites, when in reality they work hand in hand.
“That’s the problem we’ve had with the government’s stance…they present it as either or, either you support harm reduction or you support recovery, as though they’re two polar opposite things that don’t work together.
He adds that the government could fund both recovery and harm reduction if they found enough value in both strategies.
“They’re creating a false dichotomy and they’re playing politics with the money and with addictions care instead of actually providing good evidence based care.”
While the supervised consumption sites are under the provincial oversight, municipalities have made political choices based around how the Alberta government has chosen to deal with addiction, including Lethbridge city council who sent a letter to Rick Wilson, minister of Mental Health and Addictions.
Gallaway was critical of the City’s decision saying their actions show they don’t support harm reduction.
“I think the mayor and the city council in Lethbridge have made a political choice and it’s a political choice to not support harm reduction and to support other programs and that’s the record of the mayor and others on council for many years.”
The Herald reached out to Mayor Blaine Hyggen who stated he did not have anything further comment to his statements made last month other than emphasising the program is under provincial jurisdiction.
Gallaway says while the city may not have control, they advocated for what they thought should happen.
“The city doesn’t decide, they don’t control these services, they don’t fund them, they’re provincial responsibilities, but the city is choosing to advocate on what they think should happen, when ultimately it will be up to the province and we know what the province wants.”
He emphasises that motions such as the one made by the City of Lethbridge doesn’t meet people where they are at on their recovery journey.
He adds by closing supervised consumption sites will put even more pressure on an already overwhelmed healthcare system.
“We know that harm reduction and supervised consumption sites save lives, they take the pressure off our emergency rooms and emergency services, they reduce the spread of disease, they save us money by existing, while also saving lives.”
When it comes to Alberta’s Recovery Model, Gallaway says there shouldn’t be a one-size-fits-all-approach and those living with addictions should be given the opportunity to choose how recovery works for them.
“We need a full spectrum of choices for people and the keyword being choices, so they can find a program that works for them, that’s culturally appropriate that meets their needs, rather than being told ‘this is the only option and you have to do it,’ that’s not going to solve the problem, it’s only going to cause more harm.”
Gallaway believes that those who are dealing with addiction should be treated with decency and respect and is concerned the steps the province is taking to solve the issue will only make it worse due to the lack of choice of care available for recovery.
25-24
Those consumption sites have been proven to not just enable drug users, but encourage them to use drugs. I have researched provinces with high numbers of sites and those with none or 1, or like Alberta which had 7!
What I found was the more sites, the more fatal overdoses, with BC having over 50 last count over a years ago and Alberta 7.
The more sites . . . the more per capita fatal overdoses! That in itself shows they increase overdoses! Also the more harm reduction programs the more addicts and the more fatal overdoses!
I have observed young teenagers in their early teens and women who were at various stages of pregnancy using those sites freely, and no one stops them or counsels them to seek help!
In BC they do not offer any form of counselling users to seek treatment anymore and haven’t done so for at least 2 years!
I question the Friends of Medicare opposition to the closures of these sites that have been proven to enable and enourage users and send a dangerous message to those who are considering using drugs . . . it must be okay because they are providing these sites and all the paraphernalia to do drugs.
Just like the NDP, this organization is unaware of what damage these sites do! Too many people have died because of the bad NDP policies of harm reduction and promotion of these sites . . . too many families have been destroyed and left mourning the loss of their children because of these bad policies!
The UCP has also proven that treatment recovery policies ar the best way to end the carnage on our streets and in just 2 years, with only some of the treatment recovery programs fully operational, we have seen dramatic changes . . . fatal overdoses in some areas such as Lethbridge cut by 90% . . . That is a lots of lives!
That also equates to a huge reduction in ER’s being impacted by overdose patients.
So . . . I completely disagree with:
” . . .“We know that harm reduction and supervised consumption sites save lives, they take the pressure off our emergency rooms and emergency services, they reduce the spread of disease, they save us money by existing, while also saving lives.” . . . “
My researched has proven this statement all of it to be completely wrong! I would seriously check your reseach collection and not listen to the pro-harm reductionists and other non-profits who are losing funding because of the success of the treatment recovery models vs the harm reduction-supervised consumption site models.
Also . . . are you aware that the spread of disease is no longer a major issue from the drug use itself, because many now smoke their drugs and only small numbers use needles now?
The biggest spread of disease is from the unprotected sex, between the John’s paying for sex from the addicts have to prostitute themselves and from their own gang members who demand sexual favours . . . most do not use condoms . . . do you see condoms on the streets? In the Vancouver DTES you would almost see as many condoms on the streets as needles . . . I have found 1 used condom on the streets of Lethbridge in high drug use areas in the last 9 years . . . what does that tell you?
I personally have watched too many lives devastated by the NDP’s bad policies of harm reduction and supervised consumption sites . . . saw too many die who I had a rapport with on the streets . . . I completely disagree with your opiniions and taking a one month segment has no scientific bases in collecting information for the Edmonton increase. There are many reasons why that increase occurred there!
Lastly . . . I have watched many people leave these sites and overdose and in some cases die within 2 blocks of a site because when they leave, no one monitors them after they leave!!!
One died in the parking lot of the Lethbridge SCS after leaving!
And people have fatally overdosed in BC at these sites, but you will have to dig deep to find it!
They are a false sense of security that cause people to believe they won’t fatally overdose! Bad drugs have always hit the streets across Canada that cause people to overdose on to consider and these sites have little impact . . . many only use the sites to get more free drug paraphernalia and Naloxone kits, which non-profits who patrol high drug areas hand out now . . .!
I would stick to your concerns on medicare, because your knowledge of the drug crisis appears to be lacking and when lives are at stake you should have your facts straight!
If Safe Consumption Sites (SCS) worked then per capita numbers should be lower in BC with all the sites and in MB and SK the numbers per capita should exceed BC’s 4.2.
Population of: No. of SCS/OPS’s Fatal OD’s 2022 = Per Capita
SK, 1,214,618 1 450 3.7
MB 1,360,000 0 450 3.3
AB 4,600,000 7 1630 3.5
BC 5,399,118 0ver 28 2272 4.2
As of March, there were 58 fixed, mobile and episodic overdose-prevention sites and supervised consumption sites in B.C., with 33 providing observed inhalation, according to the Health Ministry.
2025 saw 1600 fatal toxic drug overdoses in BC with all of those sites. Those stats are from overdoses from what they call “illicit drug overdoses” or “illegal toxic drugs” or “toxic drugs” but do not include the safe supply drug overdoses!
Why is it they fail to report the ‘safe supply’ drug fatal overdoses? Ever asked yourselves that? These are lives!
Alberta had around 1,000 fatal overdoses in 2025 from ‘any substance’ which include: opioids, non pharmaceutical opioids, pharmaceutical opioids, benzodiazepines, methamphetamine, cocaine and alcohol! I cannot find the exact total for just fatal drug overdoses for 2025, but they are lower than the 1,000 that includes ‘any substance’.
BC didn’t include the safe supply drugs or some of the other drugs included in Alberta’s surveillance yet had 1,600 fatal toxic drug overdoses.
Lethbridge fatal overdoses for 2025 were down almost 90%!
The City has seen benefits beyond reduced fatalities, with emergency room visits for substance use down 61% and police reporting a notable drop in crime.
It is no secret that the Alberta NDP and the Friends of Medicare have very close ties and their relationship is evident in their coordinated responses against policies from conservative governments, and often collaborating and issuing joint statements to advocate for public healthcare.
When lives are being saved due to effective policies put in place and statements are made to reverse some of those policies which are proven to have saved hundreds of lives on our province, I have to ask what the motive is!
the number of overdose deaths are well down over 2025…but some would argue the overdose prevention sites have not been helpful.
they seem to be a helpful part of death by overdose prevention.