Budget 2026 coming late February

After a year marked by declining resource revenue, ongoing trade conflict and continued global economic uncertainty, Budget 2026 will reflect the reality of a more difficult fiscal environment. 

The budget will focus on careful, disciplined decision-making to manage pressures, protect essential services, and keep Alberta’s finances stable during challenging times.

“Albertans know these times aren’t easy and the path ahead will require tough choices, but Alberta’s government has a clear path forward. We are making responsible decisions now, to protect the province’s financial future, stay focused on what matters, and ensure Alberta remains strong for our children and grandchildren.” 

Lower-than-anticipated oil prices and increasing demand on programs and services from a growing population continue to strain the province’s fiscal position. Budget 2026 will reflect a deliberate and disciplined approach to spending and revenue generation. 

This budget is about living within Alberta’s means while maintaining stability during a period of significant fiscal pressure.

Albertans shared their priorities for Budget 2026 through extensive public engagement. The government values hearing from Albertans and receiving submissions on budget priorities from chambers of commerce, industry associations, community organizations, municipalities, the public and many other stakeholders from across Alberta.

Uncertainty demands discipline. Through Budget 2026, Alberta’s government is focused on maintaining stability and safeguarding Alberta’s long-term fiscal position.

Statement by the Honourable Julie Dabrusin, Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature, on the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision regarding the listing of plastic manufactured items under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

“Today, the Court of Appeal overruled the Federal Court decision declaring the 2021 Order adding ‘plastic manufactured items’ to Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 invalid and unlawful. This means that Canada’s Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations remain in force.

“This decision supports the findings of the Science Assessment of Plastic Pollution that plastic pollution poses a threat of harm to Canada’s environment and gives the Government of Canada important tools to take informed action on plastic pollution. We will work closely with provinces, territories, Indigenous leaders, civil society and industry to create long-lasting solutions.

“Canadians are concerned about the health and environmental impacts of plastics, and they expect governments to take action to address plastic pollution.

“Improving how plastics are made, used and managed is important to prevent plastic pollution and waste; build strong economies and supply chains that provide made-in-Canada solutions to environmental and market challenges; create jobs; spur innovation; and drive investment by governments and businesses in Canada.

“The Government of Canada is committed to addressing plastic pollution, protecting Canadians’ health and the environment, and promoting a clean and sustainable economy.”

Hazardous Energy Considerations in Hazmat

While “hazardous energy” and “hazardous materials” (hazmat) are distinct safety disciplines, they are deeply intertwined in industrial environments, emergency response, and waste management. For hazmat professionals dealing with site remediation or spill response, you can’t really manage one without accounting for the other.

Hazmat (Hazardous Materials) focuses on any substance—solid, liquid, or gas—that has the potential to cause harm to humans, animals, the environment, or property. These materials are strictly regulated because they often possess properties that make them toxic, corrosive, flammable, or reactive.

Hazardous Energy refers to stored power that can cause harm if released unexpectedly (mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, or thermal). In industrial and maintenance settings, the danger usually occurs when a machine is being repaired and it suddenly cycles, or a pipe under pressure bursts, because the energy wasn’t properly “locked out.”

Points of Intersection

The relationship becomes critical during active management or emergency scenarios such as the following:

Equipment for Hazmat Processing

Many hazmat management tasks involve heavy machinery, such as pumps for oil-water separators, shredders for solid waste, or centrifuges for sludge. If a technician needs to clear a blockage in a waste pump, they face both risks.

A pump not properly locked out/tagged out during maintenance could accidentally restart, resulting in an hazardous energy situation. The chemical being pumped could spray the technician resulting in a hazmat incident.

Spill Response and Containment

In a spill scenario (e.g., a ruptured pipeline or a flipped tanker), the first priority is often “securing the scene.” This isn’t just about the chemicals; it’s about the energy:

• Electrical Energy: Downed power lines near a flammable spill.
• Pressure/Potential Energy: A damaged pressurized vessel that could BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion).

Thermal Energy as a Chemical Catalyst

Thermal energy is a form of hazardous energy that directly affects hazmat stability. An uncontrolled release of heat can trigger exothermic reactions in stored chemicals, leading to fires or toxic gas releases.

3. Integrated Safety Protocols

These two fields share a regulatory and procedural DNA:

Feature	Hazmat Management	Hazardous Energy (LOTO)
Primary Goal	Containment and Neutralization	Isolation and Dissipation
Key Regulation	HAZWOPER / TDG / WHMIS	OSHA 1910.147 / CSA Z460
Required Action	Decontamination / PPE	Lockout / Tagout / Verification
The “Overlap”	Line Breaking: Opening a pipe to drain chemicals requires both LOTO and Hazmat PPE.

Why it Matters

Bridging these topics is essential. Most “Hazmat” incidents in a facility are actually “Maintenance” incidents. A hazmat professional must be fluent in energy isolation to ensure that the systems containing the chemicals don’t become the source of an accident.

Jail Sentence for Environmental Offence in Ontario

A court ruling in Ontario has sent a stark message to property owners regarding the legal weight of environmental orders. On January 16, 2025, the Ontario Court of Justice sentenced a South Bruce Peninsula landowner to jail and issued a significant fine for a decade-long failure to address groundwater contamination.

The defendant, David Robert Allen Sutter, was the registered owner of a property that formerly operated as a gas station. His refusal to comply with repeated Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) orders led to the rare escalation of a jail sentence for an individual under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA).

The court imposed a severe penalty consisting of a jail sentence of 90 days, a fine of $80,000, plus a mandatory $20,000 victim fine surcharge. It also issued a fresh order under Section 190 of the EPA, legally compelling him to finally complete the remediation work he had ignored for years.

A Timeline of Non-Compliance

While the conviction occurred on January 16, 2026, the case is rooted in nearly 20 years of history:

• 2006–2007: Investigations first identified gasoline-range hydrocarbon contamination on and off-site.
• 2016: A neighboring well was found to exceed Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards for benzene, rendering the water unfit for human consumption.
• 2017: The MECP issued a Provincial Officer’s Order requiring Sutter to remediate the site and provide the neighbor with potable water.
• 2019: Sutter was first convicted for failing to comply with the 2017 order.
• 2020–2021: Follow-up inspections confirmed that the court-ordered remediation items remained outstanding.

The violations occurred at 1137 Highway 6, a property located in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. The contamination migrated to the neighboring property at 1135 Highway 6, leaving the residents there without a reliable source of clean drinking water for nearly nine years.

The court’s decision to move beyond a simple fine to a custodial sentence highlights two primary drivers:

1. Public Health Risk: The “why” is centered on the ongoing presence of benzene—a known carcinogen—in a neighboring family’s drinking water. Sutter’s failure to provide a potable water source or remediate the plume created a direct and prolonged health hazard.
2. Deterrence for Recidivism: When a defendant repeatedly ignores Provincial and Court orders, the judiciary utilizes jail time as a necessary tool to uphold the authority of environmental legislation.

Notable Jail Sentence related to Environmental Offences

Christopher Joyce (2017)

• Offence: Failure to comply with a Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) order.
• Sentence: 45 days in jail.
• Details: Joyce managed a company that removed asbestos. After abandoning trailers full of asbestos waste, he failed to meet a cleanup deadline and subsequently ignored a court order to transport the waste to an approved site.

Mr. Van Ravenswaay (2017)

• Offence: Obstruction of Ministry Provincial Officers.
• Sentence: 45 days in jail.
• Details: He repeatedly refused entry to provincial officers attempting to inspect his property. The officers eventually had to execute a Judicial Entry Inspection Order with police assistance.

Brian Julian (2016)

• Offence: Failing to comply with a court order under the Environmental Protection Act.
• Sentence: 30 days in jail (concurrent on two counts).
• Details: Julian was ordered to move waste from his property to an approved site and provide a report. He failed to do both, leading to the custodial sentence.

Russell Wesley (2014)

• Offence: Violations under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
• Sentence: Three concurrent 5-day jail sentences and a $25,000 fine.
• Details: As a trailer park co-owner, Wesley failed to comply with a court order regarding chlorine testing, record keeping, and ensuring a certified person operated the drinking water system.

Key Takeaway for Professionals

This case serves as a critical reminder that Ontario EPA Section 190 Court Orders are not suggestions. For environmental engineers and consultants, it reinforces the necessity of advising clients that non-compliance with a “Qualified Person” (QP) requirement or a remediation deadline can lead to personal criminal liability, regardless of whether the owner is an individual or a corporate director.

EPA accelerates U.S. review of fluoride health risks in drinking water

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced the next step in an accelerated federal review of potential public health risks associated with fluoride in drinking water, releasing a new scientific roadmap that will guide its forthcoming assessment under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The agency recently published the Review of Science on Fluoride in Drinking Water: Preliminary Assessment Plan and Literature Survey, outlining how EPA scientists intend to evaluate emerging research on fluoride exposure, with particular attention to outcomes related to childhood development, as well as maternal and infant health.

The fast-tracked effort follows an April 2025 directive from EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to expedite the agency’s next fluoride health assessment, which would not normally be required until 2030 under standard Safe Drinking Water Act timelines.

“Every American should be able to count on safe, healthy drinking water when they pour a glass to drink or use it to cook a meal, especially for a child,” Zeldin said in an EPA update about the review.

Utah and Florida became the first U.S. states to pass laws in 2025 banning the addition of fluoride to public water. Over the last year, 14 other states pursued similar legislation. Although several bills failed to pass, some states still have bans under consideration.

EPA officials emphasized that the review will follow what the agency called “gold-standard scientific methods,” incorporating peer review, inter-agency collaboration and public transparency. The newly released assessment plan compiles key studies to be examined and identifies sensitive populations — including infants and children — as a focus of the evaluation.

The agency said the review will inform any future decisions on whether federal drinking water regulations should be revised, while noting that it is not approaching the process with predetermined conclusions.

EPA currently sets a maximum contaminant level for fluoride at 4.0 milligrams per litre, a standard established in 1986 and most recently reviewed in 2024. Separately, CDC guidance recommends an optimal level of 0.7 milligrams per litre to help prevent tooth decay. Decisions about whether fluoride is added to public water supplies, however, remain largely under state and local jurisdiction.

While federal standards apply regardless of whether fluoride occurs naturally or is intentionally added, EPA stressed that its role is limited to ensuring levels remain within health-protective limits, not directing municipalities to fluoridate.

Fluoride policy has also been shifting beyond the U.S. In Canada, the City of Montreal ceased fluoridation at the Pointe-Claire and Dorval water treatment plants in late 2024, affecting more than 143,000 residents in several suburban communities. City officials cited the need for consistency, as fluoridation does not occur elsewhere on the island, as well as technical challenges in safely managing the additive.

Regina also revisited its fluoridation program after a newly elected councillor raised concerns tied to emerging research.

Health Canada continues to recommend 0.7 milligrams per litre as the optimal fluoride concentration in drinking water.

EPA’s Preliminary Assessment Plan will be open for public comment for 30 days, marking the beginning of what the agency says will be a comprehensive and transparent reassessment of fluoride’s health impacts in drinking water.

Resilience and Risk: Canadian innovation recognized in list of global cleantech leaders

As we settle into 2026, the cleantech sector is shifting from a period of high-hype investment to a phase of “pressure cooking,” where success depends on demonstrating tangible, scalable, and cost-efficient results. While crucial for meeting climate goals, the sector faces significant bottlenecks related to capital, infrastructure, and geopolitical constraints that threaten to slow the pace of decarbonization. 

The annual Global Cleantech 100 2026 recently put the spotlight on the leading companies vying to make their mark in the sector. The report is the 17th annual list from Cleantech Group, tracking progress in climate technology. This year, the focus has shifted to resilience, resource efficiency, and AI-powered infrastructure as companies respond to economic and climate challenges. Almost half of the companies on the list are new, showing how fast priorities are changing in cleantech.

Canadian companies are helping drive this change, especially in areas such as carbon removal, critical materials, water technology, and circular-economy solutions. These fields are now key to sustainability and managing environmental risks.

AI Integration Across Climate Solutions

Artificial intelligence is becoming a major part of cleantech innovation, helping companies become more resilient and manage risks. Firms on the Global Cleantech 100 use AI to make more accurate predictions, improve infrastructure, and reduce environmental risks.

For example, Pani Energy uses AI software to improve the efficiency of water treatment. This helps factories use fewer chemicals, work more reliably, and lower the risk of harmful discharges. This trend shows a move toward using predictive analytics to mitigate operational risks before they happen.

Critical materials and the circular economy

Concerns about supply chains and global politics have made resource independence and recycling more important. The 2026 list includes new ideas in battery materials, metal recovery, and low-impact mining, with Canada playing a big role:

• Mangrove Lithium is developing more sustainable methods to produce battery-grade lithium hydroxide with less environmental impact.
• Cyclic Materials recycles rare earth elements from old electric vehicle parts, reducing the need for new mining and the generation of hazardous waste.
• Moment Energy gives used EV batteries a second life by turning them into energy storage systems. This helps with both material shortages and waste.

These companies demonstrate how recycling and reuse can reduce environmental risks and strengthen supply chains.

Resilience and risk management

As climate events become less predictable, cleantech is shifting its focus from reacting to risks to preventing them. New technologies that help secure water, keep energy reliable, and make infrastructure stronger are now key to protecting the environment.

Eavor, a geothermal company, shows this change by providing steady, zero-emissions energy without the land or water problems of traditional geothermal systems. Meanwhile, AI-powered water tools, such as those from previously mentioned Pani Energy, optimizes water treatment efficiency, which is a key metric for industrial compliance and reducing effluent risk.

These solutions are part of a broader industry effort to build stronger, more resilient infrastructure. This is important for keeping communities, nature, and businesses safe.

Carbon removal and negative emissions

Beyond just cutting emissions, the 2026 Global Cleantech 100 shows that scalable carbon removal is becoming more important. Canadian companies are also leading in this field. Some are working on large projects that remove carbon dioxide and create permanent, verifiable credits for hard-to-decarbonize industries.