Prime Minister Stephen Harper missed a prime opportunity this week to smooth over his strained relations with Canadian scientists. This tension has been fed by a myriad of poor policy decisions, from the gutting of environmental laws and defunding of leading research centres to the muzzling of government scientists. In his cabinet shuffle, the prime minister could have held out an olive branch to scientists, but instead he appointed Greg Rickford as the new minister of state for science and technology.

As a former lawyer and nurse, Rickford lacks the science and research pedigree that should be a prerequisite for such a position. But it is Rickford’s past performance on science issues that is raising eyebrows in science circles. An examination of his track record on the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) would be a particularly enlightening predictor of how he will handle the science and technology portfolio. Rickford is the Member of Parliament who, despite strong protest by scientists worldwide and his own constituents, blindly supported the government in shutting down the ELA science program in his own riding.

Turn back the clock to 2011. Rickford, as MP for the Ontario riding of Kenora, stood proudly alongside federal government scientists to announce the opening of ELA’s new fish laboratory, which was funded to the tune of $1 million under Canada’s Economic Action Plan. Then, he spoke glowingly about ELA, referring to it as “Canada’s most innovative freshwater research centre.”

Fast-forward to May 2012. The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans announced that after 44 years of world-class science at ELA, it is shutting down this unique research centre and halting all whole-ecosystem science in Canada. Needless to say, this was a reckless decision for science and a reckless decision for the health of our environment.

And so, Canadian scientists lost their most powerful research platform to understand and mitigate the impacts of industry on our lakes and fish populations. No more groundbreaking research on algal blooms, acid rain, mercury pollution, endocrine disrupting chemicals, aquaculture impacts, antimicrobial nanomaterials and climate change.

Rickford’s response? “We’re shifting priorities with respect to research development and environmental issues,” he said. “Our mandate has moved to a smaller-scale research that reflects what priorities are today.” And “we have a golden opportunity . . . to integrate the Experimental Lakes into a larger scope freshwater protection process that will benefit a larger community than just a narrow scientific community.”

Such newspeak is simply astonishing. ELA science provides critical information to the government of Canada ― unattainable anywhere else ― on how to protect our country’s freshwater and fisheries resources, and this is not one of the “priorities” of today? The federal government cuts an essential public science program, and that is “a golden opportunity”? Since when did “smaller-scale” research become more desirable than whole-ecosystem science, which scientists have deemed the best type of science to guide policy decisions?

Notably, while the government’s focus on science is getting smaller, the challenges we face are only getting bigger: the expanding footprint of the oilsands is visible from space, new pipelines will soon criss-cross the country, toxic algal blooms and invasive species threaten the health of our lakes, and the damaging impacts of climate change are being experienced first-hand in the form of extreme weather events.

In addition to Rickford’s strict adherence to the talking points on ELA provided by the Prime Minister’s Office, he even went so far as to say his constituents were “happy” ELA is shutting down. Meanwhile, people across northwestern Ontario were holding protests, organizing town halls, passing resolutions and writing letters in opposition to ELA’s closure. Furthermore, at every opportunity, Rickford ignored the concerns of scientists, refused to table petitions signed by his constituents, and declined invitations to attend public forums.

Where is ELA today thanks to the short-sighted actions of the Canadian government — loyally supported by Rickford? Federal funding has been terminated. Canada pulled out of its long-standing agreement on ELA with the province of Ontario. ELA’s science team has been devastated and dismembered. New experiments at ELA have been cancelled. The promised transfer of ELA has not yet happened. The doors to ELA as a federal facility will shut in September, and we don’t know if they will open again.

How is it that a politician with no science background and one who failed to support one of our county’s most important public science programs in his own riding is now our minister for science? Moreover, why would the prime minister choose this particular person for this particular position? It’s an unconscionable choice, given the solemn fact that the future of Canadian science now rests in his hands.

So, what can Canadian scientists and the public expect for the next two years under Rickford? The evidence is in ― we can expect neither good policy nor public accountability. But, what we can expect to see is more discontent from scientists with the Canadian government.

Diane Orihel is a PhD candidate at the University of Alberta. Britt Hall is an associate professor at the University of Regina. Carol Kelly is professor emeritus at the University of Manitoba. John Rudd is former ELA chief scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada.