Calgary University accused of conflict of interest

The president of the University of Calgary was in a conflict of interest over a 2011 plan for a corporate-funded research centre at the institution, an investigation by a group that represents academics has concluded.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers also found that creation of the Enbridge Centre for Corporate Sustainability was fraught with governance problems and subject to influence from its donor. As well, faculty and staff have been intimidated from speaking out on the issue ever since, the association said.

“We have extensive experience dealing with university administrations on matters related to academic freedom,” said the report’s authors in a letter to Gordon Ritchie, chairman of the university’s board of governors.

“Neither of us can recall ever having encountered a university administration, or indeed any party, that took such an array of steps as the University of Calgary has done in order to avoid engaging with, while also actively frustrating or discrediting, an independent investigation into its past conduct.”

The university appointed retired judge Terrence McMahon to investigate allegations around the Enbridge Centre. In a 17-page report in 2015, McMahon cleared the institution and said president Elizabeth Cannon was only doing her job as an administrator.

In an email Wednesday, Ritchie repeated previous remarks standing behind the McMahon report as a comprehensive and independent review. He dismissed the association’s process as unreliable.

“The committee has not conducted itself with independence and fairness,” said his statement, which did not address the report’s concerns about intimidation of faculty.

Enbridge also lined up behind the McMahon report.

“We have not reviewed the Canadian Association of University Teachers’ report, but we are confident in the results of Justice McMahon’s independent inquiry,” the company said in a release.

“We respect that academic research must be conducted independently and do not interfere with this process in any way.”

Despite invitations, the university did not participate in the association’s investigation. It cited remarks from one of the members of the investigating committee that suggested he was biased.

That member resigned from the investigation. The authors said he did not contribute to the final report.

The association began its probe after media reports into the birth of the sustainability centre, which was partially funded by a $225,000 annual grant by Calgarybased pipeline company Enbridge.

Concerns arose after it was revealed Cannon was involved in discussions over the creation and staffing of the centre despite holding a paid position on an Enbridge board.

“At the very least, Dr. Cannon should have recused herself publicly from all Enbridge-related discussions and decisions at the U of C,” the report says. It adds she intervened several times during the centre’s creation.

The report, authored by a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and a media studies professor at the University of Western Ontario, also found the academic freedom of the school’s original director was damaged.

That director left under a cloud over disputes about the centre’s goals and his opposition to the Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline. As well, the report says, Enbridge was given too much input into the centre’s academic priorities, recommending its partners and helping plan its launch.

“Viewed in isolation, some of the actions of U of C administrators would not rise to the level of an encroachment on academic freedom,” says the report. “But as an accumulation, in our view, they do.”

It also pointed out the centre never seemed to have been discussed by the university’s board of governors.

David Robinson, executive director of CAUT, said the association’s report reaches different conclusions from McMahon because it asked different questions.

“(McMahon) was to look at if any policies and procedures of the university were violated. Those policies and procedures were interpreted very narrowly.

“When it came to academic freedom and academic freedom as a foundational value in the university, the McMahon report tended to be a little bit too perfunctory.”