On 15 November 2021, Calgary City Council declared a climate emergency. Four years later, a motion to rescind it was defeated 4-10. This case file walks through what the declaration directed, what got built, what it cost, and who actually paid.
Two motions to rescind Calgary’s climate emergency declaration are at Executive Committee on May 5, 2026; if forwarded, Regular Council May 26.
The same question lost 4-10 in September 2025 — the testimony below is from that debate.
Keeping the declaration costs the city nothing extra. Rescinding it forfeits 4 concrete things and unlocks no matching savings.
Scope: concrete items only, taken from the public record. Money already in hand or under signed multi-year agreements continues to flow regardless of the vote — what’s at stake is the future flow, the city’s ongoing ability to attract new outside money under the declaration. Symbolic and political effects of rescission are out of scope.
Both motions are attachments on the May 5, 2026 Executive Committee agenda and, if forwarded, will be heard at Regular Council on May 26. For the verbatim WHEREAS and BE IT RESOLVED clauses, see the motions register.
Goes further than EC2026-0404: not just rescission but a memory-hole — directs administration to scrub all references to the declaration from City documents and forbids future Council reports from citing it.
Pairs rescission with a value-for-money audit and a Bill 18 economic claim. The Bill 18 framing overstates what the Provincial Priorities Act actually does — see the fact-check on /climate/claims.
There's various reasons why council might use the word emergency. One of them might actually be to declare a state of local emergency under the Emergency Management Act. ... Council may choose to use that word for a value statement or to highlight an item of concern. ... I can tell you, Council, very clearly that falls under the purposes of a municipality, which is outlined in section 3A.1 of the Municipal Government Act, which applies to every municipality in Alberta, not just Calgary. And that is a purpose of a municipality includes fostering the well-being of the environment. So this falls squarely underneath that. With that kind of a declaration made under the purpose statement, there are no additional powers that are conferred. ... So, from that perspective, both the Emergency Management Act as well as Section 551 of the Municipal Government Act, which refers to an emergency, has no relevance to this declaration. ... And so there are no additional powers.
The declaration doesn’t grant the city any new legal powers — Calgary’s authority to act on climate comes from the Municipal Government Act either way. Anyone framing rescission as “taking away emergency powers” has it backwards.
Alberta’s Municipal Government Act (MGA) s. 3A.1(“purposes of a municipality”) grounds the authority; the Emergency Management Act and MGA s. 551, both of which use the word “emergency”, are explicitly excluded. The answer above was given on the record under questioning at the September 2025 debate.
We're known for our entrepreneurial spirit, our innovative spirit, and since that declaration, we have seen new clean technology businesses open and invest in Calgary. And we have also been able to leverage over $287 million from provincial and federal and private sources.
Grants already in hand are safe regardless of the vote (see the funding breakdown). What rescinding ends is the ongoing flow of new outside money and the 13 accelerated directives attached to the declaration.
The Floen and Hamilton quotes above are from the EC2025-0859 debate at the September 16, 2025 council meeting. That motion was the same shape as EC2026-0404 — rescission paired with a value-for-money audit — and it was defeated 4-10. All six accompanying audit directives also failed.