Skip to main content

Ontario Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk talks about her report on the costs of cancelling the Oakville gas plant project at the legislature at Queen's Park in Toronto, Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2013.

Frank Gunn/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Ontario's Auditor-General is going to review private security contracts for the 2015 Pan American Games as concerns mount over the costs of these deals.

An all-party committee of the legislature voted on Wednesday to ask Bonnie Lysyk to conduct a value-for-money audit on security contracts for the games, which will take place in Toronto and other communities in Southern Ontario.

"We will be looking at anything that has private-sector contract involvement," said Ms. Lysyk, who hopes her report will be issued early in the fall.

Story continues below advertisement

The directive by the legislative committee comes nearly three weeks after the province announced that Vancouver-based Contemporary Security Canada (CSC), a subsidiary of a U.S. company, had been awarded an $81-million contract to provide private security at the Games.

The opposition criticized the deal when it was revealed that the bid from another finalist, Toronto-based Reilly Security, was $14-million lower.

As well, the province did not make public that the CSC contract is only for assisting the Ontario Provincial Police-led Integrated Security Unit around the perimeter of venues at the games. First reported by The Globe and Mail, the Pan Am organizing committee has begun the bidding process for a security contract to protect buildings and other structures within the venues. It will be awarded later this year.

The organizing committee has declined to say how much has been allocated for the second contract, although Ontario Tourism Minister Michael Chan said last month that the overall security budget for the Pan Am games had increased to $239-million, more than double the original estimate of $113-million.

Ms. Lysyk said on Wednesday that she will examine both contracts. As well, the audit will review the format used to rank companies that submitted bids. "We will look at the process that was used. We are also aware that, on the first contract that has been awarded, there was a fairness opinion given, so we'll look at the fairness opinion given by the fairness monitor," Ms. Lysyk said.

Paul Miller, NDP critic for Sport, Tourism and Culture, said the audit is needed to clear up what he suggested has been a lack of specific information from the Liberal government about security costs. "How did it go from [$113-million to $239-million]?" Mr. Miller asked.

He also said he was not aware a bidding process had started on a second private security contract. "This is the first I heard of it," Mr. Miller said. "I thought security was security. I didn't know there were different levels."

Story continues below advertisement

Meanwhile, the scoring method the province used in awarding the $81-million contract to CSC was weighted in such a fashion that the company could have bid as much as $111-million and still been selected, according to a mathematical analysis conducted by a professor at McMaster University in Hamilton.

The price bidders submitted made up 40 per cent of the final score for each finalist. "The money amount was not given a proportionate weight," suggested Michael Soltys, a professor in McMaster's computing and software department (Mr. Soltys is also a consultant for a company that is owned by Reilly Security).

CSC has a lengthy track record providing private security at athletic events, including the Vancouver Winter Olympics in 2010. Several senior employees have served on Olympic organizing committees.

The provincial Community Safety minister, Yasir Naqvi, said in a statement issued on Wednesday that the Liberal government is committed to making the Pan Am games "the most open and transparent ever. We welcome the Auditor-General's review and will assist in any way possible," he said.

With a report from Adrian Morrow

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter