Despite all the “seismic concerns” the NDP government has developed about the Royal BC Museum, the decision to tear it down and build a new one is creating a political earthquake.

This is turning into a significant crisis for a government that has overcome a few over the past five years. This one is entirely self-inflicted and it changed the political tone in a matter of days.

This is still primarily a local issue that may or may not involve the whole province. But it could become a major moment in the life of this five-year-old government.

It comes just when NDP ministers were enjoying a lull in the pandemic, perhaps even a gradual rollback. The Cabinet was just beginning to get some breathing room to refocus on the regular agenda of issues.

Then Prime Minister John Horgan unleashed a whole new firestorm on Friday (the 13th) by pledging to spend $789 million to demolish and replace a popular facility that no one knew was structurally doomed.

The move coincided with the arrival of Kevin Falcon as BC’s new Liberal leader, who appears poised to rejuvenate a flagging opposition. So after watching a visceral, negative “are you kidding me?” Backlash built up over the weekend, he was sworn in and his first hit at bat was the museum – a juicy, belt-high pitch just above the plate.

He logged in. It was hard not to, given the wave of criticism from all quarters that greeted the announcement. The Liberals and Greens continued to swing Tuesday. After Tourism Minister Melanie Mark justified the expense by saying part of the museum is below sea level, Falcon reminded her that the NDP is forcing commuters to spend years in the Massey Tunnel under the river Fraser after the cancellation of the BC Liberal bridge plan. (And at a time when sea level rise is a concern, they’re moving forward — with an even taller tunnel.)

Regardless of that, the basement storage problem is already solved by the $224.4 million Archives and Collections Building that is in the works for Colwood. Subtract seismic as legitimate reason.

The idea that it will symbolize Indigenous reconciliation, which was highlighted during the announcement, is also highly questionable. It sparked a compelling argument on Tuesday, where two Indigenous MPs clashed. Mark, of Nisga’a, Gitxsan, Cree and Objibway ancestry, championed the project.

BC Green MP Adam Olsen of Tsartlip First Nation told him that “a sanctuary to house the systemic rot” of historic Indigenous oppression “is not the solution.”

In an emotional second day of lambasting the decision, he said: ‘The problem with the museum is how it relates to indigenous peoples. It has been identified as a terrible place to work for Aboriginal people. It can’t be fixed by a bigger, brighter, shinier museum built with solid wood and wrapped in Lekwungen-inspired veneer.

He later said he was moved to tears by the thought of the government erecting a monument instead of returning culturally significant objects to the First Nations from whom they were taken.

Mark said the government is working with First Nations to get their validation and follow the protocol. Esquimalt and Songhees leaders were on hand for the announcement last week and gave every indication they supported it.

She also said her team was “working around the clock” to release the business case behind the decision to tear down and rebuild. There are a lot of things to do on the document – regardless of its published version.

It must provide a clear explanation of how a vague concept of “modernization” turned into a decision to close the entire facility in September and spend more than seven years demolishing, cleaning up the site and build a new one.

(Also, it would be good to get an explanation as to why the most recent “risk register” for the facility – from 2015 – that is included in the current service plan makes no mention of ‘widespread decay or system failures.)

Horgan and Mark have so far missed the mark in championing this project. Maybe they dropped the ball, or maybe the concept is just plain untenable. The business case will need to be compelling enough to change the direction this argument is taking.

[email protected]