When Michelle Ferreri first became Conservative MP for Peterborough—Kawartha in 2021, the nature of her constituency office’s workload surprised her.
“I didn’t know that we would be focused so much on immigration,” said Ferreri, who lost the riding to the Liberals this April.
By the end of her term, her staff had closed roughly 1,500 immigration files — but still had another 500 open.
“It was the number-one issue coming into our office,” she said, estimating about 80 per cent of its caseload related to immigration.
Her experience is not unique.
Don Stewart, the Tory MP who won the Toronto—St. Paul’s riding to much fanfare in 2024, only to lose it back to the Liberals in April, says immigration accounted for a “significantly higher” portion of his office’s work than he had anticipated.
Stewart’s former senior advisor Chelsea Gordon estimates about 95 per cent of their office’s calls related to immigration. The phones rang “off the hook,” she said.
Both MPs say the volume of immigration casework is symptomatic of an immigration system that has become inefficient and inaccessible.
“ When people came to us, it was because they were at the end of the rope with their usual channels with [Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)],” said Stewart. “And they weren’t getting answers.”
Systemic failures
The status quo described by Ferreri and Stewart did not emerge overnight.
In 2012, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the predecessor name of IRCC, abruptly closed 19 local offices and ended walk-in service.
That shift centralized nearly all immigration service delivery through a single call centre and the IRCC web portal.
The closures were justified as a move toward efficiency. But they effectively cut off in-person access to IRCC staff, forcing applicants to complete applications, upload documents and seek status updates online.
“There was this explicit policy to cut off the public from civil servants and to use one call centre as the main focal point,” said Danièle Bélanger, a Université Laval sociologist whose research shows how immigration casework now consumes much of MPs’ time.
The call-centre model was meant to modernize service delivery. Instead, it left people navigating what Belanger described in a research paper as “a true administrative labyrinth” where inquiries routinely go unacknowledged.
IRCC’s own data underscore this point. In 2018, only 22 per cent of the 1.7 million calls to IRCC’s public call centre were answered by an agent.
Ferreri says the effect has been to leave MPs’ offices managing the fallout.
“My staff became Service Canada employees,” she said. “I didn’t feel like we were a liaison; I felt like we were Service Canada. [We] were constantly problem solving … It was no fault of the constituent … It just always felt like they were being passed from pillar to post.”
Uneven access
Ferreri says she is concerned about the fairness of the current immigration system, which leaves MPs to engage with IRCC directly on constituents’ behalf.
The handling of an immigration file should not be based on “who you know,” she says, or “having an MP to pick up the phone and call the minister to get something done.”
In an e-mailed statement to Canadian Affairs, an IRCC spokesperson noted the immigration minister has the authority to rule on immigration cases elevated by MPs.
“Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Minister of Immigration has discretionary authority to grant exemptions or permits on humanitarian and compassionate grounds,” said the statement. “While MPs may bring urgent cases to the Minister’s attention, decisions are made solely by the Minister or delegated officials.”
At a September policy summit, former Liberal and Conservative immigration ministers Marc Miller and Jason Kenney both spoke to the pressure that the minister comes under from MPs.
“ I’ve often [had], as Jason certainly has … an MP call you out on immigration policy and then corner you in the side of the lobby and say, ‘Can you … cut me a break?’
“It’s almost like a drug deal. They’re like condemning it publicly, but then saying, ‘Gimme more of this and this,’” said Miller, who was immigration minister from 2023 to 2025.
Kenney made a similar observation.
“ After question period, the biggest crowd that forms in the House is around the immigration minister, not the prime minister,” said Kenney, who was immigration minister from 2008 to 2013.
“Because the number one pressure point for local constituencies is immigration files.”
Similar to Ferreri and Stewart, Miller said 80 per cent of his downtown Montreal office’s files related to immigration — and this was before he became immigration minister.
“It became 360 per cent afterwards,” he joked.
“And if you can’t keep caucus members happy, or at least give them a rational reason [for not intervening in their file], they quickly turn on you. And those are the political dynamics of being the immigration minister.”
In its emailed statement, the IRCC spokesperson said, “IRCC does not maintain statistics on the frequency of Ministerial decisions taken after an MP’s advocacy.”
The spokesperson also noted the department encourages applicants to use traditional channels.
“IRCC acknowledges the important role MPs’ offices play in supporting constituents but encourages individuals to use official IRCC channels for application inquiries and updates.”
Citizen–constituent gap
Neither Canadian citizenship nor permanent residency is required for individuals to access the services of a constituency office.
Stewart challenged the fairness of this framework, noting MPs make an outsized commitment of resources to a non-voting demographic.
It “ doesn’t benefit everyone in the riding the way it should,” he said. “ The resources should be spent to benefit everybody,” he said.
Ferreri said she views overwhelmed constituency offices as a function of an overwhelmed immigration system.
“[O]ur priority list was ‘constituent first’,” she said. “I don’t know that we had ‘Canadian-first’ [outlook], to your point, but it’s obviously … like … you want to treat the people who are Canadian— Too much of anything creates scarcity, right? So if there’s too many people, it’s going to create and overwhelm …
“ I’m coming back to the cause of the problem: Why do you have that volume of caseload to begin with?”
Bélanger, of Université Laval, noted that for all the system’s flaws, the status quo highlights the value of constituency offices.
“[A constituency office] sort of fixes a broken system in some way. It’s not ideal, but it’s really something important to most people [in terms of] finding solutions to a long-term administrative nightmare.
“It has brought families together. It has solved problems for employers. It’s just incredible …
“I think that … it’s a contribution and despite, you know, the fact that it’s perhaps not what’s mostly desirable … for the time being, that’s all we have, that’s the best we can have.”
Leave a comment