Once again I feel compelled to write in and respond to those who have attacked my recently submitted letter not based on the content, but based on ethno-cultural assumptions of my last name and my assumed political/economic views.
First off since I feel some respondents chose not to read the letter I will set the record straight that I am not against accepting refugees. As a country I pointed out in my letter that we accept some 25,000 refugees each year and I fully support continuing to do so. However, I am against the government exploiting Canadians’ emotions to support an inefficient, discriminatory and quite frankly preferential resettlement of Syrian refugees. The National Post had a great article this past week titled “Canada’s other refugees: 26,000 arrive annually without fanfare or an official welcome” that is a great read to show the other side of the refugee response in Canada.
I would also encourage your readers to read the CBC analysis titled “Why Canada's refugee plan falls well short of a real solution.” Now as the federal government is doubling down and promising to bring in 50,000 Syrians by the end of 2016 then we need to truly be asking if this is our humanitarian obligation or just utter lunacy to continue to support this approach. To summarize some facts from the CBC article Jordan has taken in over a million refugees (mostly Syrian) at a cost of $2.1 billion in 2015. Its annual GDP is only $38 billion. The article also highlighted a report that stated the rapid expansion of Syrian refugees in Jordan could threaten political stability, collapse the current regime and further destabilize the region.
So again I reiterate that our $1.2-billion investment to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees in Canada or most likely over $2 billion if we bring in 50,000 government sponsored Syrian refugees is wrong. Not because I think like Scrooge as pointed out by one respondent or that I lack humanitarianism by another. Not because I am a xenophobe as stated in the original commentary for not supporting this resettlement of government sponsored Syrian refugees. It is because our billion-dollar investment helps so few that need it and discriminates against a large majority of the world’s estimated 60-million refugees.
So you’re damn right I want to see both financial and political accountability for this investment as I know this money could help a whole lot more people but to do so we need to realize that bringing in government sponsored Syrian refugees to Canada is not the solution. It is an inefficient use of money to tackle the refugee crisis and we should instead be cutting cheques and providing funding assistance to allies like Jordan and to the UNHCR who are able to help millions of refugees who have been displaced at the same cost of Canada helping 25,000 to50,000 Syrian refugees.
So if my views of helping as many refugees as possible in other countries and providing funding to ensure stabilization in a region instead of bringing in Syrian refugees qualify me as lacking humanitarianism and having the moral compass of Scrooge than I will gladly wear that crown. But it does not change the fact that the government’s current approach is guilt-driven tokenism at best and fails millions of deserving refugees at worst. So yes, when it comes to the $1 to 2 billion we are spending on resettling Syrian refugees we should demand the best bang for our buck because it is the difference of helping millions of refugees as opposed to 25 to 50,000 refugees.
Mike Zapchek, St. Albert
