That might not be a good example.
If that same Syrian, Heather, ends up in Berlin or Brussels, let's say, the humanitarian support package is $70 per day.
Let me give you another example, this one on the United States border. The Washington Post did an an article about the United States spending $3,750 per child per week sheltering children on the United States border. For that same child and family, for $1 to $2 each per week, we can provide stability and sustainability with resilience programs inside their home country. We have solutions that work. We have to scale them up and fund them, and I don't mean to just throw money at international aid and throw money at the problem, because that is not the solution.
You know me. I'm pretty tough about how we have solutions, we have effective programs and we need to fund them. As to the governments like Canada, the United States, Germany and others, it's going to cost you a thousandfold more if you have destabilization of the nations that end up in war and conflict. If you end up with mass migration by necessity, it costs a lot more.
It would be like having leaky water lines in your ceiling and you have water just dripping and dripping. You're going to lose the carpet, the mahogany table and the curtains, and you're going to lose the flooring, and you're fighting over where to put the buckets. It's a lot cheaper to go up there and fix the busted lines. That's what we're saying. Let's go and address the root cause. Obviously, when you're dealing with a short-term emergency, I get it, but many of these issues we're facing now are protracted conflicts. The more that the donors—the governments—can give us flexibility to do more with the dollar, that is also very strategic and effective so that we can have long-term planning.