The debate over paid blood plasma donations is heating up, with opposition critics reducing themselves down to nativist, and downright false, claims about the experts supporting the government’s plan. .In the committee review process for this legislative change, NDP MLA Sarah Hoffman embarked on what can only be described as a nativist line of questioning for Ethics Professor Peter Jaworski. After eloquently explaining the need for paid plasma donations in Alberta, MLA Hoffman questioned Dr Jaworski with the following: .“I’m just wondering, as a professor in the United States I think you’re our only international person here today- and i’m wondering what your interest is in paid donations in Alberta and why you want to bring this style of collection into a canadian province?” .For those who have followed the paid plasma debate, and the work of Dr Jaworski, this line of questioning didn’t just seem awkward, it seems downright inappropriate. Yes, Dr Jaworski teaches at Georgetown University in the United States. That said, he’s also a Canadian, and has been a Canadian since his family claimed refugee status here in 1987 when they fled communist Poland. Hoffman’s line of questioning seemed to be implying that because Dr Jaworski is an “international person” and a professor based in the United States, that somehow his opinion is invalid, or that his interests need to be questioned. That, or she is just lazy when it comes to researching the background and qualifications of whom the committee (which she is a part of) invites to present. Assuming that Hoffman’s question was a genuine one, and not thinly veiled xenophobia, Dr Jaworski promptly explained that he is in fact, a Canadian..“I am a Canadian. I have been since 1987 when I immigrated from Poland. So I am a Canadian and that is my interest. I happen to be working at a university in the United States, but I am a Canadian, thank you.” .You would think that after Dr Jaworski’s polite response to having his allegiances questioned, on the official record, that this line of questioning would be done away with and that MLA Hoffman would avoid this nativist, ad hominem, and false line of questioning/critique. Unfortunately for those who care about civil discourse, MLA Hoffman doubled down when speaking on the floor of Alberta’s legislature later that day. .“The UCP tries to refute the fact that they are Americanizing our healthcare, but today they invited an American based professor to speak to the committee about American style corporate model for blood” .It is incredibly unprofessional and unbecoming for a sitting MLA to reduce a Canadian refugee success story down to nothing more than “American based”. Imagine if Premier Kenney took to the floor and accused the NDP of “Mexicanizing” a portion of the Alberta economy, and was critical of them citing a “Mexican based professor” despite the fact that said professor was a Canadian. The word to describe that would be bigotry, and that is exactly what MLA Hoffman is guilty of. .Nativism, and even birtherism, is bizarrely widespread on the Alberta left. Regularly, NDP and other leftist activists raise the Ontario birthplaces of Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, former prime minister Stephen Harper, and former Wildrose MLA Derek Fildebrandt, as being alien imports to the Alberta body politic. They argue that there must be some dark reason that intra-Canadian (conservative) immigrants to Alberta would seek to be a part of its public life..MLA Hoffman’s shameful actions show that the arguments against paid plasma are weak, and can’t be made in any serious or rational way. It clearly demonstrates that the UCP is right in its move to legalize paid plasma. Rather than engage in debate on the subject, the NDP have reduced themselves down to petty, nativist, ad hominem attacks. For a party that rightfully prides itself on combating bigotry, in all its forms, it might be time to take a look in the mirror..David Clement is a columnist for the Western Standard and the North American Affairs Manager of the Consumer Choice Center
