Article content continued

What does that look like? Such a plan would have three key components.

First, the government’s annual resettlement target should be developed in a bottom-up exercise in consultation with provinces, cities, and civil society groups who sponsor refugees. The federal target should be a function of local capacity rather than arbitrary political whims. The obligation, then, would be on communities to step up to meet their own goals, and, in exchange, the federal government might fully or partially compensate them for incremental costs, such as education and health care, for a certain number of years.

The worldwide refugee crisis is the worst in decades, shows no signs of abating, and indeed may actually worsen. Canada needs a long-term refugee policy

Second, the federal government should maximize the number of privately sponsored refugees. The rationale isn’t about cost or a lack of compassion. It’s about results. Research shows that privately sponsored refugees tend to integrate better, more quickly, and ultimately more successfully than refugees with no prior links or social capital. An “enabling agenda” might include supporting more private sponsorship by reducing wait times and providing greater financial support to Sponsorship Agreement Holders and to individuals and families who sponsor refugees.

Third, Canada must support those states that are bearing the brunt of the refugee crisis. There is a risk of making the smug presumption that everyone wants to come to Canada. To the contrary, refugees — Syrian or otherwise — overwhelmingly don’t want to leave their homeland and would prefer to stay in the region. Canada’s geographic distance from the heart of the crisis means that we get to “cherry pick,” often from the UN-sanctioned camps, but other jurisdictions — particularly the neighbouring states — do not. Compassion shouldn’t be a function of geography.