Banning cosmetic pesticide use started out as a relatively benign, feel-good idea that would give Premier Christy Clark some green cred without too much of a downside.
Let's outlaw the use of toxic chemicals on lawns and gardens. Other provinces are banning them. It sounds like the right thing to do. And it will head off any advantage the NDP enjoys from pitching the same move.
How she got from that stance to the self-constructed box she's in today over the issue is an odd tale.
The release of a committee report this week that recommends against such a ban puts her in a bit of a bind. Either she breaks the promise she made repeatedly and accepts the report saying there's no need for a ban, or she goes ahead with the ban and ignores the considered opinion of five members of her caucus in order to - horrors - side with the NDP.
The third, more likely option, is that she parks the idea, sticks it in the needs further study file and hopes the dilemma somehow goes away.
It looked a lot simpler last year. The prevailing mood seemed to favour a ban and she was keen to get on the right side of the public. So she came out strongly in favour of a ban while campaigning for the leadership.
"To put families first, we must ensure that our families are raised in safe environments," she said. "That is why I want to see a ban on cosmetic pesticides on lawns, parks and playgrounds. These dangerous pesticides are proven to increase the likelihood of childhood cancer and other illnesses, and have no place near our homes. I don't want to see my son playing on a lawn with toxic pesticides. I don't want to see anyone's child playing on a lawn with toxic
pesticides."
She repeated the promise after becoming premier. To get started on it, her government created a bi-party committee on cosmetic pesticides. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
She was reaching out to the NDP, which supports a ban, and laying the groundwork to impose one properly.
The terms of reference were specifically to consider the scope of any ban which suggests they were supposed to look at how to do it, not whether to
do it.
Where things got interesting is when Liberal MLA Margaret MacDiarmid resigned as chairwoman because she was named to cabinet, and Bill Bennett was elected in her place. As is clear to anyone with a passing interest, Bennett has a mind of his own. He developed a keen interest in the existing regulatory regime.
His committee invited the federal agency that approves pesticides to
explain what it does.
That's notable, because B.C. is the first province to look that deeply into the issue.
Also notable from the 10 months of work was the public interest in the topic. The committee received more than 8,000 responses from people, the most any such committee has ever had. An earlier environment ministry survey got a similar level of input, which shows a high level of interest in the issue.
The Liberal majority, swayed by the evidence from the federal scientists who regulate pesticides, eventually concluded "there is insufficient evidence to warrant a province-wide ban on the
cosmetic use of pesticides.
"Based on currently available studies, the majority cannot justify disagreeing with the findings of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency's comprehensive
pesticide testing and re-evaluations."
For a premier who thinks pesticides increase kids' chances of getting cancer, this is not what she wanted to hear.
Although she's caught now in a clumsy position, she showed this week she's still good at skating around the question of what happens next.
"I didn't go to the legislative committee and say: 'Alright, I want you to do exactly as I tell you,'" she said. "I didn't go with the intention of trying to turn the legislative committee into some form of elaborate political theatre that was going to come to a predetermined outcome."
Clark said she'll give the report its proper weight and "we'll have to see where we go from here."
She'll likely try to put this off for a while, but the issue has generated
intense interest and isn't going away.
It's still out there, lying in the weeds.
