University of Calgary, Enbridge deny interfering with academic freedom

Both Enbridgeand the University of Calgary deny the company exerted any influence over the mandate and operations of an Enbridge-sponsored research centre at the post-secondary institution, despiteemails that suggest the contrary.

A CBC investigation into the Enbridge Centre for Corporate Sustainabilityshows the pipeline company offered itsopinion on many facets of the centre, including staffing, board membershipand student awards. It also brought in its own communications agency to take care of advertisements, speech writingand other tasks for the centre, which was part of the Haskayne School of Business.

• How the University of Calgary's Enbridge relationship became controversial
• U of C staff suspected Michigan partnership was for Enbridge PR
• U of C's relationship withEnbridgeslammed by faculty associations

Several academics, contacted by the CBC, have charged thatEnbridge had too much control over the centre's mandate and operations.

Enbridgedenies it had any power over the centre, which was part of an initial $2.5 million sponsorship and bore the company's namebetween 2012 and 2014,and said these opinionsshould not be taken as fact.

"At no time did we at Enbridge interfere with the operations at the centre. At no time did we try to unduly influence the academic freedom," said D'Arcy Levesque, a company spokesperson.

"Managing the research and managing the operations of the centre are clearly the responsibility of the university," he said. "We've understood that from day one."

For its part, the university also said that while it listened to advice fromEnbridge,it was responsible for all the decision making.

Enbridge suggested twopartnerships

Some of those decisions include reaching out to a university in northern British Columbia and in Michigan to see if they wanted to partner with the U of C's new Enbridge Centre.

It does not appear in the documents that the Uof Cconsideredpartnerships withany other universities except for the two that Enbridge had suggested.

For critics of the arrangement, the issue here was thatEnbridge was in the midst of a huge public relations exercise in Michigan after one of its pipelines ruptured and spilled oil there2010. The company also has an office in northern B.C. where it is proposing the Northern Gateway pipeline project.

Of the two suggested universities, only the one in Michigan agreed to be a partner.

Despite concerns raised by academics, the president of the U of C says the partnership with an institution in Michigan probably made sense, considering the magnitude of the oil spill in the state.

"I think from that there's a lot of learningthat can be done and what better place to have those learnings on business processes, decision makingand so on, than our business school," Elizabeth Cannon said in an interview with CBC.

She said she does not know the circumstances about how the partnership with Central Michigan University came to be, or whether there was any academic benefit from it in the end.

Cannon did receive the same documents obtained by the CBC, which chronicle how Enbridgeexpected the U of C would go ahead with the partnership with Central Michigan, despite concerns being raised by the centre's director at the time,Joe Arvai.

Enbridge responds to CBC investigation

9 years ago

Duration 1:03

Enbridge's D'Arcy Levesque responds to CBC's investigation into the Enbridge Centre

Both Enbridge and the U of C agree the Enbridge Centre got off to a rocky start. It went through several different directors and its launch was postponed several times.

Cannon says the universityhas made changes in how it works with external partners based on its experience with the Enbridge Centre.

Cannon says those changes includewriting down what the expectations are and being accountable.

"You also need to make sure you have the right leadership. That you've got stable directorship, in this case, to make sure that someone is responsible day-to-day to carry out the duties of the centre," said Cannon.

"Could the former dean havebeen a better communicator?Could he have been more transparent?Those are some of the learnings we have in the discussions that we have with our academic leaders."