There are few things in politics that bother me more than foolish wedge politics standing in the way of meaningful progress.

This week, the House of Commons votes at second reading on Bill C246, The Modernising Animal Protections Act, proposed by east-end Toronto MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith.  It's a simple and sensible bill, but some Conservative MPs see the chance to make a political issue to rile up their base.

Erskine-Smith's bill proposes to make essentially three changes to Canadian law on animal protections.  First, the bill proposes to finally ban shark finning, something various Canadian cities have done already.  Secondly, the bill proposes to ban the sale of dog and cat fur, something any pet owner would be surprised to know isn't already banned.  And, thirdly, Erskine-Smith's bill seeks to ensure animals are protected from harm by their owners' negiligence.

This is common-sense type stuff, the sort of longstanding issues that simple, sensible reforms can tackle.  Erskine-Smith points out that animals would remain a person's property, but obviously not in the same sense as a chair.  You can dispose of a chair on a campfire.  No Canadian would say the same of the family dog.

But rather than debating the merits of the bill at committee, some Conservative MPs are seeking to stir up trouble.  With little more than "slippery slope" rhetorical fallacies, some Conservatives are attempting to say that protections for animals from negligence could lead to crackdowns on hunting, angling and farming.  This is utter nonsense, but is symptomatic of the kind of mindless politicking we see too often.

It's easy to see why some Conservative MPs see the chance to spin a yarn to their hunting, farming and fishing constituents.  Most Canadians don't pay attention to politics in general, much less to private members' bills.  But tell a micro-targeted population — such as a hunting club or farming associations — that a vegan, Toronto MP wants to extend protections to animals and maybe it might just someday lead to infringing on hunting or farming, so please help out by donating $50 to fight back, and you've got yourself a potentially powerful fundraising campaign.

The Conservatives are masters of this simplistic exploitation of the low-information voter.  Indeed, their fundraising apparatus is based on this "Liberals are doing something you won't believe so donate now" approach.  Often, facts are irrelevant or are glossed over in the interests of the broader narrative.  Lest people think I'm unfairly picking on the Conservatives, I will readily stipulate that Liberals and NDPers do it too, in their own way.

Ultimately, one can only hope that the Liberal government, rather than cowing to this Conservative slippery slope simplicity, will vote for Erskine-Smith's reasonable bill.  If some Conservatives can succeed in scaring the Liberals off of doing the right thing with such a puerile argument, our democracy is weaker than we like to think.
The bill in question is one worth defending, and it is in the defence of principles that we can correct such mischaracterisations and push back on the attempt to dumb down our national discourse.  Canadian politics is, fortunately, not yet as polarised as American politics, where conservatives are willing to vote for a bigoted, misogynistic, philandering, wannabe despot simply because they cannot countenance voting for a Democrat.

Indeed, the last federal election campaign in Canada was one of Justin Trudeau putting his unique political talents towards persuading Canadians certain sacred cows are worth slaying (apologies for that metaphor in the context of a discussion of animal protection, but I couldn't resist the idiom).

Just because some Conservative MPs can spin yarns about a bill does not mean the government should fear supporting the bill.  If anything, this bill represents a chance to say—to urban and rural Canadians alike—we will ensure fair, prudent protections for animals in this country, and those Conservative MPs who would trivialise this debate are unworthy of the type of discourse we expect in our democracy.

The Liberal government should get behind Erskine-Smith's bill C246.  It's the right thing to do, and it would show that our politics can still allow for a full legislative debate despite political efforts to dumb it down to the hundred-word fundraising pitch.