In another marathon meeting with the final vote being taken at 2:16am, Durham Region Council adopted the three reports that describe the incinerator project: Medical Officer of Health on human health impacts, Chief Administrative Officer on the Host Community Agreement with Clarington, and finally the report by the Commissioners of Works and Finance to recommend the entire project forward.

Please take a few minutes to thank those councillors who voted with the public interest as their priority (see the votes marked "Critical!"). The recorded votes are...

10:43pm Chris Fortin (last delegation) did his own research: many incinerator projects in the U.S. have been abandoned, many municipalities have adopted zero waste plans. If a European energy from waste association can invite Dr. Paul Connett, long time advocate for zero waste, to speak at their conference, the region could be a bit more open minded. Don't pounce on this quick fix.

10:35 Richard Ward (#77) short wrap up.

Durham Region Council's Committee of the Whole approved the main incinerator environmental assessment study report at the meeting that wrapped up at 1:30am Wednesday morning, after an all-day session of listening to presentation by members of the public and representatives from CUPE Ontario, the Durham Region Labour Council and the CAW Durham Regional Environment Council.

Does this mean it's a "done deal"? NO! The recommendation passed at the committee level still needs to be ratified by the full council at the meeting Wednesday June 24th.

Carried 14-6, 8 absent, recorded vote.

The Host Community Agreement with Clarington was passed. This means that, according to the Clarington Council resolution passed May 15, that municipality would become a "willing host" if Regional Council accepts the recommendation next week.

Carried 16-5, 7 absent, recorded vote.

This is probably the most important vote of the process. The report was supposed to answer the question "is it safe?". However, after today, it appears to be very much a judgement call to say "are the risks acceptable?". It would depend on who is making that estimate.

Main motion: To adopt the human health and ecological risk assessment for the 140,000 tonnes/year case
Moved Trim, seconded Johnson
Carried 15-7, 6 absent, recorded vote

We are down to the last few speakers to the committee meeting. The last delegation is to be from Covanta Energy, the company that has been chosen to build the incinerator, should it be approved. We are hoping that more than one councillor will be asking tough questions about the company's environmental, employee relations and financial record.

What happens next is presentations from the consultants about the reports and studies they have just released, before developing a recommendations. We can hope that the recommendation is to choose alternatives to incineration.

What's interesting is the "Are you aware that...?" type of question. Councillors use it to make a point. Today most of the questions have been coming from Brian Nicholson, Regional Councillor, to point out that most people in Durham Region are unaware of the incinerator. Unfortunately, some of the councillors only use it to try to entrap speakers.

Nadia thanks her students for the elegant fashion statement. If you can't tell from the photo, the lovely outfit is made of garbage bags.

Up to delegation #54 and only three delegations in favour of incineration.

Currently listening to Nadia, who is wearing a dress made of garbage bags. "If you guys are trying to make garbage look good, so can I".

Many other good points were raised:
* Uncertainty over the future - will the rules change and cost the region more in air pollution equipment, carbon taxes or monitoring.
* The energy we would get from waste is a "pinprick" compared

Delegation by Dave Renaud, CAW Durham Regional Environment Council, is attached as two PDF files, parts 1 and 2.

We get more jobs out of recycling than burning, green jobs, sustainable jobs.