Explain to me why THIS requires a third party manager?

APTN provides context for the fiasco that led to the posturing over Attawapiskat. It started March 5th, 2005.

The sewage backup happened around the same time that De Beers, the international diamond company currently operating a mine 90 kilometres from the community, disposed their sewage sludge into the community’s lift station, said Hookimaw.

Documents obtained by APTN National News back Hookimaw’s claim.

Ontario First Nations Technical Services was called in to assess the situation and its engineers concluded that the De Beers discharge may have been behind the sewage backup that ended up in the basements of homes in Attawapiskat.

“What is currently known is that De Beers discharged a load of sewage into the pumping station. This might have precipitated the overloading of the pumping station, thereby causing sewage backup,” said the engineering report.

The engineers also noted that the federal government was informed of the problems, but Ottawa did little to try to fix things, according to a follow-up report by different engineers with First Nations Engineering Services.

“The general condition of the pump control panel is very poor. There is a key switch to control manual selection of the pumps. It is very difficult to operate and may fail at anytime,” the report noted.

(bold and emphasis mine)

De Beers decision to dump sewage into Attawapiskat played role in current housing crisis | APTN National News


6 thoughts on “Explain to me why THIS requires a third party manager?

  1. Renee Peters says:

    Because Hookimaw also mentions that the Attawpiskat band council didn’t sign the insurance papers, so the insurance company was not obligated to do repairs.

    • aspearce says:

      Renee this is the second time I’ve see that claim made – but no one has linked to a quote or a soundbite of Hookimaw saying any such thing. I’ve gone through the video and the article twice now and cannot find what you are referencing.
      Please provide a link.

      I would also like to know if there are conditions attached to the insurance cheques. i.e. liabilities that the AFN would not want to accept if they are disputing the damages with INAC (now AA) or DeBeers directly.

  2. Renee Peters says:

    It’s in her facebook photos, dated over a year ago. Google has really interesting information if you can wade past the news network propaganda. As for the insurance cheques… well, to be honest, do any of us ever really agree to all the terms of insurance? No, but we can’t get a mortgage without insurance, and we can’t make a claim without paying the tab.
    Don’t get me wrong… I empathize with this particular situation Ms. Hookimaw’s parents find themselves in, as they were not personally responsible for signing the insurance papers. But not everything is as “they’re all against us” as some chiefs would like to claim.
    It is also my understanding by reading the timelines of the Debeers agreements and IBA that Debeers didn’t start work up there until 2006.

    • aspearce says:

      I found the photo – October 4, 2010. APTN is only telling half the story here it seems.

      And yes, the IBA was signed 2005, but the Victor mine was built during 2006.

      I don’t disagree with your point but there are still questions I have. You don’t build a mine of Victor’s size without an exploration project going in first. It seems likely work was going on at the site before 2005. Whether this site could produce a volume that would have done the damage being claimed — this is another matter altogether.

  3. aspearce says:

    Adding grist to the mill.

    De Beers exploration in the area actually started in the 1980s but picked up in the 1990s with MAUs being signed with the community.

    Some kind of operation was present before 2005.


  4. Renee Peters says:

    “The general condition of the pump control panel is very poor. There is a key switch to control manual selection of the pumps. It is very difficult to operate and may fail at anytime,” the report noted.

    The report found that the system was very fragile and at high risk of failing.

    “There is no overload protection. This is an extremely risky way to run a pump,” the report said.

    In 2009, the warnings from engineers proved prophetic. There was another sewage backup which displaced more people, forcing many to be evacuated.

    And herein lies an issue I have. Perhaps the pump should have been a higher priority than the “administrative fees”. And after watching the video clip again…. where did the $25,000 insurance cheque go? Did it go to the band? Did the council use it for themselves? Why is this not a front news story on insurance fraud?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: