Document filed reveals new information about 2019 meeting with Bell COO
By Amanda OYE
CHATHAM, Ont. – TekSavvy Solutions Inc. filed a disclosure of facts and circumstances today to the federal Integrity Commissioner regarding the actions of CRTC chair and CEO Ian Scott, which provides new information on the widely reported meeting between Scott and then Bell chief operating officer (now CEO) Mirko Bibic at an Ottawa bar.
According to a public version of its disclosure, TekSavvy is arguing Scott “committed a wrongdoing within the meaning of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.” The company is seeking further investigation into this matter.
The public version of the disclosure document, Appendix A – Disclosure to the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, says Scott has held other solo meetings with Bell, Rogers and Shaw while the Commission had a file open concerning wholesale Internet rates and indicates Scott “apparently held various other ex parte solo meetings with Bell, Rogers, TELUS and Shaw while other important files relating to wholesale competition were open before the Commission.”
As for the meeting between Scott and Bibic, the TekSavvy document says the two were photographed meeting privately at a bar on Dec. 19, 2019, which was about a week after Bell applied to have the CRTC review and vary a 2019 decision on wholesale rates. (The photo, above, was included in the document TekSavvy filed today.)
The photo, which was taken by an eyewitness and which TekSavvy obtained a copy of, had a time stamp indicating it was taken at 5:25 p.m., according to the document. In it, two beers and a file are seen on a table in front of Scott and Bibic.
The day after, Bell reported the meeting as a lobbying communication, the document says.
A central reason TekSavvy is turning to the Integrity Commissioner now is because “no process so far has actually just looked at whether that was an appropriate meeting or not,” said Andy Kaplan-Myrth, TekSavvy’s vice-president of regulatory and carrier affairs, in an interview with Cartt.ca.
(Kaplan-Myrth noted the Competitive Network Operators of Canada tried to raise the issue in an application to the CRTC requesting to have Scott recused from proceedings related to service-based competition, but the CRTC decided it would not hear that application.)
TekSavvy contends the question of whether the meeting was appropriate is important in the broader context of the CRTC’s 2021 wholesale rates decision, which reversed a decision the Commission made in 2019 after incumbent telecom carriers including Bell applied to have the CRTC review and vary it.
Since the 2021 decision was made, TekSavvy has petitioned the federal government to overturn the decision and has sought and been granted approval to appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.
“Not only did Mr. Scott not even, apparently, follow the required steps to preserve the integrity of the CRTC in setting up the meeting, but he appears to have made an effort, after the fact, to conceal that proper protocols were not followed” – TekSavvy
“We’ve raised concerns about [Scott’s] bias in our appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal because that’s important in terms of… interrogating the way the CRTC arrived at their decision,” Kaplan-Myrth said.
“The basis of our appeal is that the CRTC didn’t follow any process to arrive at the rates in that decision. They reviewed their earlier decision, they said that they had found errors and they used that as a way to effectively throw out the process and freeze the rates where they already were as opposed to… following a process to arrive at fair and reasonable rates,” he said.
“The reasonable apprehension of bias makes that all the more concerning – if they’re going to exercise discretion to set the rates wherever they want, well then, the bias of the chair becomes an even more important part of the decision making process.”
Kaplan-Myrth also said TekSavvy has more information about the meeting now, noting “there’s concern that the chair might have actually become aware that that meeting was not appropriate and is not being forthcoming about that and instead is trying to paint it in a more innocent light…”
The new information Kaplan-Myrth is referring to was obtained by a TekSavvy employee through Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) request. The CRTC, in response to the request, provided “an email from an employee of the Chairperson’s Office to a redacted recipient sent on December 19, 2019 at 5:57 pm,” the TekSavvy document filed today says. The email confirms the recipient’s meeting with Scott on Dec. 19, 2019 and reminds the recipient not to discuss matters before the Commission.
The TekSavvy document notes the CRTC months later provided another record, which “appears to be an internal calendar entry in Mr. Scott’s calendar documenting the meeting; it is not a meeting invitation including any other attendees. Because it was not sent to any attendees, it does not show a record of the time the agenda entry was created.” The entry was not provided to TekSavvy in full either, the company says – the location, start and end date and part of the subject line were all redacted.
“Part of the concern is just how shocking it is that Bell would have the benefit of a meeting like this” – Andy Kaplan-Myrth, TekSavvy vice-president of regulatory and carrier affairs
TekSavvy takes the evidence it presents in its document, including the photo and the results of the ATIP request, to mean the only records of the December meeting between Scott and Bibic were created after they realized they had been photographed.
“The only disclosed effort relating to compliance with any of the CRTC’s internal requirements appears to be Mr. Scott’s retroactive attempt to meet the barest of requirements: “meetings should also be confirmed in writing”,” TekSavvy argues.
“Not only did Mr. Scott not even, apparently, follow the required steps to preserve the integrity of the CRTC in setting up the meeting, but he appears to have made an effort, after the fact, to conceal that proper protocols were not followed.”
Scott has previously confirmed the meeting did take place but has also denied any wrongdoing – first in an interview with the Toronto Star, and again during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in early February.
“I think the evidence really contradicts the story that this is an innocent meeting. He claimed that this was just a beer with a friend, but it was written in his calendar as something, it’s actually partially redacted, but it’s with the incoming CEO of Bell,” Kaplan-Myrth said, pointing out if he has a drink with a friend, he does not put it in his calendar as a drink with the CEO of a company.
“Also, if it’s just a casual encounter then the file on the table and the report to the lobbying registry starts looking weirder, and the timing of the email to the CEO of Bell confirming the meeting is suspicious and… doesn’t really fit with the story that it was just a meeting with friends,” he said.
Kaplan-Myrth further raised the question of whether it would be appropriate for a CRTC chair, or a chair of any similar decision-making body “to just be casually getting together with their friends, if those friends also happen to be the CEO of the largest, most powerful company that [they] regulate – I think that we need the integrity commissioner to look at the question of the appropriateness of that,” he said.
“Part of the concern is just how shocking it is that Bell would have the benefit of a meeting like this,” Kaplan-Myrth said, noting it is very different from any meeting TekSavvy has had with the CRTC.
He also said he was surprised Scott addressed the meeting at all when he was interviewed by the Toronto Star. “Actually, my understanding is he wasn’t even asked about it, he volunteered his views on that meeting,” he said.
Kaplan-Myrth is less concerned, however, with Scott in particular and more with “how the industry, and now it seems the regulator, would tolerate an atmosphere where this kind of meeting can happen and everybody’s comfortable with it.”
“That seems clearly inappropriate to us, and I suspect it only seems appropriate to the largest companies that would benefit from this,” he said. “That feels a lot like regulatory capture – and that concerns me much more.”
Photo supplied by TekSavvy.
