Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Amazon Prime Day Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentLiam Ferguson: Concerns over cutting back therapy sessions for refugees are misplacedThe needs of Canadian citizens should have priority over those of migrantsLast updated 33 minutes ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.The federal government has capped mental health sessions for refugees at 10 hours a year. Photo by GEOFF ROBINS / AFP / Getty ImagesThe Canadian government’s recent cut to mental health services for migrants has some progressive professionals criticizing the decision. They argue that the remaining funded hours per year are not enough for migrants to “heal from their trauma.” There are two questions that should be asked. The first is why professionals such as psychologists and social workers are concerned about who receives funding for their services. The second is why the Canadian government is funding the services at all.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorOne answer to the first question is that the professionals in question are political activists masquerading as psychologists and social workers. This is evident by the statement from a Toronto-based therapist that his first reaction was “disappointment and confusion.” Disappointment and confusion about limiting government handouts to migrants is hardly the position professionals should be expected to have. This statement highlights the ever-present issue of certain types of professionals using their work to hide their political activism. A professional focused solely on their work has little concern for things outside of the quality of their work.This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againA second answer is that services that are publicly funded make a minimum level of demand for that profession more likely. Looking to the recent surge in migration numbers, it follows why some professionals take issue with the recent cut. From 2021 onwards, there have been 205,307 refugee claims accepted by the federal government. Based on the refugee numbers and the typical political activism of some professions, it is obvious why they have taken issue with cuts to services. They seek to not be at the mercy of the demand of markets, as much of Canadian society is. Instead, they desire to be given handouts in the form of certain people being funded to receive their services, which partially explains criticism of the cuts.An answer to the second question is less obvious. It could be an ideological basis that Ottawa sees fit to fund the services for new migrants. It could also be that the government believes it will receive less criticism from those who oppose funding the services if they do it than vice versa. Regardless of the answer, there is little reason the government should be acting in the interests of certain groups when its purpose is to act in the interests of all the people it serves. The case could be made that it is in the public interest for people who honestly require mental health services to have them funded by the government. However, this is not the current state in Canada. Only services which are deemed “medically necessary” are publicly funded, which means Canada does not have universal mental health care. So, not only is the government acting in special interests when it should not, but it is not serving its own citizens to the same degree it serves migrants.A further concern is the potential for hospitals to become further overcrowded with people if refugee illnesses are left untreated. This argument leaves a simple answer: cut the number of refugees accepted to Canada. One, this will prevent or alleviate further overcrowding in hospitals. Second, it will prevent the Canadian taxpayer from being further burdened with the bills of people who are not citizens. In fact, it is reported that an estimated $16.7 million will be saved in 2026-2027 by the recent cuts made by Ottawa. Third, it will assist the current immigration crisis in Canada, which has only been deepened by the high refugee numbers.There is nothing intrinsically wrong with notions such as compassion. However, attempts to substitute strong public policy for compassionate public policy only hurts Canadians; the very people the government is supposed to serve and protect. If Ottawa seeks to universalize mental health services, they may have a case, but the treatment of Canadian citizens should never be less than the treatment of certain groups; especially a group that are not citizens.Special to National Post Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.