Auditor general hunts for NPCA leak
Provincial body trying to find source of information in Standard report
Ontario’s auditor general has been putting pressure on staff and managers at Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority in an effort to find out who provided The Standard with information about the audit of the beleaguered agency.
The office of Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk launched an investigation in July to find out how The Standard acquired a document that showed her audit of the NPCA had red-flagged some $1.5 million in contracts awarded by the authority.
The Standard has learned NPCA managers and staff have been subpoenaed to appear for interviews with auditor general investigators in Toronto over the past several weeks, where they must testify under oath.
A spokeswoman from the auditor general’s office said the agency has no comment and NPCA CAO Mark Brickell did not respond to an interview request Tuesday.
On July 24, The Standard reported on the contents of an auditor general document titled “Sample Non-Conformance Factual Clearance,” which identifies a list of issues the auditor general is investigating. The document is not the final report and does not contain final conclusions or recommendations. The final audit report could be different than the
factual clearance document.
The document points to 40 items that were under investigation by the auditor general, including several that did not have supporting documentation.
Among the contracts under examination is $41,226 paid to Carmen D’Angelo — now Niagara Region chief administrative officer — for what the document says was an “unidentifiable service.” It is also looking at $27,120 paid to a Mississauga consulting firm to help NPCA combat “nefarious sources” which had “impugned” NPCA projects.
At the time, Lysk said she could not comment on the document and said that its leak constituted obstruction under the Auditor General’s Act.
Section 11.2 of the act says no one “shall conceal or destroy any books, accounts, financial records, electronic data processing records, reports, files and all other papers, things or property that the Auditor General considers to be relevant to the subjectmatter of the special audit or examination.” Doing so would be obstruction and is punishable by a $2,000 fine and a year in prison.
The auditor general’s office has declined to explain how the release of the document could be considered as obstruction as defined in the act.
Grant.LaFleche @niagaradailies.com 905-225-1627 | @GrantRants