Mapping Indigenous Representation in Canada’s House of Commons - Lori Idlout's floor cross makes a difference in the North!

12 Indigenous MPs in Canada's House of Commons. 

By Joshua Brass Fraser for Indigenous Politics Blog
March 11, 2025

Map created by Joshua Fraser for the Indigenous Politics (#IndigPoli) project tracking Indigenous representation in Canada’s Parliament.*If you would like to use this specific map (above), please contact us for permission. 

Indigenous political representation in Canada is no longer confined to a handful of northern ridings. Today, Indigenous Members of Parliament represent constituencies that stretch from the Arctic to Atlantic Canada and across major urban centres in the West and Prairies. Their presence reflects both the geographic diversity of Indigenous peoples and the growing influence of Indigenous leadership in Canada’s federal politics.

As of March 2026, 12 Indigenous MPs sit in Canada’s House of Commons, representing ridings across four different political parties. Mapping these ridings reveals something deeper than simple electoral geography: a northern arc of Indigenous-majority constituencies spanning the country, alongside a growing presence of Indigenous representatives in major Canadian cities.

Recent political developments have further elevated the national importance of this representation. With Lori Idlout joining the Liberal caucus, Canada’s largest riding—Nunavut—now sits closer to the centre of government at a time when Arctic sovereignty, northern infrastructure, and the future of the Northwest Passage are becoming increasingly important national priorities.

Mapping Indigenous Representation in Canada’s House of Commons

From Nunavut to Nova Scotia, Indigenous MPs now represent ridings across the country

As of March 11, 2026, 12 Indigenous Members of Parliament sit in Canada’s House of Commons, representing ridings from the Arctic to Atlantic Canada and across four different political parties. Their presence reflects the evolving geography of Indigenous political leadership in Canada.

A map of these MPs reveals two distinct patterns of representation: a northern arc of Indigenous-majority ridings and a growing number of urban Indigenous representatives in major Canadian cities.

A Northern Arc of Indigenous Representation

Several of the ridings represented by Indigenous MPs form what might be described as a northern political corridor stretching across Canada. These include large and geographically expansive ridings such as Nunavut, Churchill–Keewatinook Aski in northern Manitoba, Desnethé–Missinippi–Churchill River in northern Saskatchewan, and Abitibi–Baie-James–Nunavik–Eeyou in northern Quebec.

These ridings share several characteristics. They cover vast geographic areas, contain many remote communities, and often include large Indigenous populations. In some cases, Indigenous peoples represent a majority of residents and voters, giving these communities a significant influence in federal elections.

These northern districts also play an increasingly important role in Canada’s national conversation about sovereignty, resource development, and Arctic policy.

Urban Indigenous Representation Is Growing

At the same time, Indigenous political leadership is increasingly visible in urban ridings such as Winnipeg Centre, Edmonton Northwest, and Vancouver Quadra.

This shift reflects broader demographic changes. Today, more than half of Indigenous people in Canada live in urban areas, and Indigenous political participation is expanding accordingly. Urban Indigenous MPs often bring perspectives shaped by housing, economic development, and the realities of Indigenous life in Canadian cities.

Together, these northern and urban patterns show that Indigenous representation in Parliament is no longer limited to a handful of remote districts. Instead, it reflects the full geographic diversity of Indigenous peoples across Canada.

Nunavut, Arctic Sovereignty, and the Northwest Passage

Recent political developments have added another important dimension to this discussion. Nunavut MP Lori Idlout recently joined the Liberal caucus, bringing Canada’s largest riding more directly into the governing party’s parliamentary discussions.

This change comes at a moment when Canada is increasingly focused on Arctic sovereignty and the strategic importance of the Northwest Passage, particularly as global trade routes evolve and climate change makes Arctic navigation more viable.

In this context, Inuit communities are central to Canada’s presence in the Arctic. The longstanding principle often expressed in northern policy discussions is that “sovereignty begins with the people who live there.” Inuit communities have lived across the Arctic for generations, maintaining deep knowledge of the land, sea, and environmental conditions. Their presence and stewardship are a fundamental part of Canada’s Arctic identity.

The Inuit Connection Between Nunavut and Greenland

Nunavut also sits within a broader circumpolar Indigenous world. Both Nunavut and Greenland have overwhelmingly Inuit populations—approximately 85–90 percent of residents in each territory identify as Inuit. This shared cultural foundation creates a natural connection between the two regions.

Inuit across the Arctic share language roots, cultural traditions, and long-standing relationships that predate modern national borders. As Arctic governance and economic development increasingly become topics of international discussion, these Inuit connections between Canada and Greenland may become even more relevant.

Understanding these relationships is important not only for cultural recognition but also for policymaking. Inuit perspectives are essential to conversations about Arctic sovereignty, environmental stewardship, and northern economic development.

A National Indigenous Political Presence

Taken together, the current map of Indigenous MPs illustrates how Indigenous representation is becoming a national phenomenon rather than a regional one. Indigenous MPs now represent ridings in the North, the Prairies, British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, and Atlantic Canada.

Their presence reflects changing demographics, growing Indigenous political participation, and the increasing importance of Indigenous leadership in Canada’s political landscape.

As Canada continues to grapple with issues such as reconciliation, Arctic sovereignty, and economic development in Indigenous territories, the perspectives of these MPs will likely play an increasingly important role in shaping the national conversation.

---

Indigenous Representation and Canada’s Constitutional Framework

The presence of Indigenous MPs in Canada’s Parliament also reflects a deeper constitutional reality. The Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes three distinct Indigenous peoples—First Nations, Inuit, and Métis—in Section 35, affirming the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples across the country.

While Members of Parliament are elected to represent all constituents within their ridings, Indigenous MPs often bring perspectives shaped by treaty relationships, Indigenous governance traditions, and the lived realities of their communities. Their presence in the House of Commons adds an important dimension to national debates about reconciliation, land stewardship, economic development, and the future of the Arctic.

In many cases, these MPs represent regions where Indigenous nations have long-standing relationships with the Crown through treaties, modern land claim agreements, or self-government arrangements. As a result, discussions in Parliament about infrastructure, resource development, northern policy, and environmental protection frequently intersect with Indigenous rights and governance.

The increasing presence of Indigenous representatives in federal politics therefore reflects more than changing electoral demographics. It also mirrors a broader recognition that Indigenous peoples are central to Canada’s political, legal, and constitutional landscape.

As Canada continues to navigate issues ranging from reconciliation to Arctic sovereignty, the perspectives and leadership of Indigenous Members of Parliament will remain an important part of the national conversation.

Closing thought: Understanding where Indigenous MPs represent Canadians is one way to better understand how Indigenous political leadership is shaping the country today.

From Chillin’ with Elijah Harper to Electing a National Chief: An Indigenous Political Journey

From Chillin’ with Elijah Harper to Electing a National Chief: An Indigenous Political Journey

MENTORSHIP, MOVEMENT-BUILDING, AND LEARNING TO WALK IN TWO WORLDS INSIDE CANADIAN POLITICS

February 8, 2026

Sneak Peek | Coming Soon

Before the headlines, before the elections, before the public record, there was mentorship.

Long before I ever worked on national campaigns or helped elect a National Chief, I was learning what it meant to walk in two worlds — to carry Indigenous responsibility into political spaces that were not designed with us in mind. That education did not come from textbooks or theory. It came from people like Elijah Harper, who showed a generation of Indigenous political organizers how to be present, prepared, and principled inside institutions of power without losing humility or identity.

What follows in the full piece is not a memoir, and it is not an endorsement of any single political path. It is a reflection on how Indigenous political leadership is learned — through mentorship, organizing, failure, discipline, and trust — and how those lessons carried me from federal party politics to First Nations governance, and eventually into the work of helping elect a National Chief.

This upcoming essay traces that journey honestly: from partisan organizing and back-room work, to national executive roles, to the realization that walking in two worlds is not just about identity — it is a method. A way of engaging power, data, people, and institutions with accountability to community first. The full piece will explore what that has meant in practice, who shaped that learning, and why those lessons matter now more than ever.

Full essay coming soon on IndigPoli.

Deb Haaland for first Native American female Governor of New Mexico - Representation, Responsibility, and the Indigenous Vote

Deb Haaland for first Native American female Governor of New Mexico 

Representation, Responsibility, and the Indigenous Vote

Deb Haaland is a citizen of the Laguna Pueblo and a 35th-generation New Mexican whose roots in the Southwest long predate statehood. Raised in a military family and later settling in Albuquerque, Haaland’s early life was shaped by resilience, responsibility, and community. As a single mother balancing school and work, she built a life experience that continues to inform her leadership style — grounded, pragmatic, and deeply connected to the people she serves.

She earned a Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of New Mexico in 1994, followed by a Juris Doctor with a focus on Indian Law from the University of New Mexico School of Law in 2006. Her legal training reflected a clear commitment to Indigenous governance and self-determination. Before Congress, she worked in community-based leadership roles, including as a tribal administrator and casino manager for San Felipe Pueblo, and as chair of the Laguna Development Corporation Board, helping guide economic development rooted in tribal priorities rather than extraction.

Haaland’s political rise was built through organizing, not shortcuts. She served as New Mexico’s Native American vote director for President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, chaired the Native American Caucus of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, and later became Chair of the New Mexico Democratic Party from 2015 to 2017. During that time, she helped rebuild party infrastructure and expand participation — particularly in Indigenous communities that had long been sidelined in state and national politics.

DEB HAALAND STRIVES TO WORK HARD 

TO LIFT UP INDIGENOUS WOMEN, 

PARTICULARLY YOUNG INDIGENOUS WOMEN. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Deb Haaland is from Laguna Pueblo and 

Sharice Davids is from the Ho-Chunk Nation.

The 2018 midterm election marked a turning point in U.S. political history. On the same night, two Indigenous women were elected to Congress for the first time ever. Haaland won New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District with 59.13% of the vote, while Sharice Davids flipped Kansas’s 3rd District from Republican to Democrat with 53.3%. Each victory stood on its own — together, they signalled a structural shift long overdue.

COMING SOON: SHARICE DAVIDS: FIRST 2SLGBTQ+ NATIVE AMERICAN CONGRESSWOMEN

Haaland was reelected in 2020 but served only briefly into her second term. In early 2021, she was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as Secretary of the Interior, becoming the first Native American to serve in a U.S. federal cabinet and the first Indigenous person ever to lead Interior portfolio — a department whose authority over land, water, and resources has profoundly shaped Indigenous lives for generations.

This history matters not because of symbolism alone, but because representation changes outcomes. New Mexico is home to 19 Pueblos, three Apache reservations, and roughly one-third of the Navajo Nation. Indigenous voters are often underestimated or ignored — yet when engaged and mobilized, the Native vote is decisive. Leadership like Haaland’s demonstrates what becomes possible when barriers fall and participation follows.

Let’s make history — again.

Deb Haaland is running to become the first Native American woman elected Governor of New Mexico. Her record — in Congress, in Cabinet, and in community — demonstrates leadership grounded in accountability, experience, and results.

This moment is not about symbolism. It is about ensuring that the most capable leaders are trusted with real responsibility — and that Indigenous leadership is no longer treated as an exception.

If you believe in leadership that delivers, now is the time to step forward.

Support. Volunteer. Donate.

👉 Get involved at:
https://debhaaland.com

When Commentary Ignores the Law: Indigenous Rights, Oral History, Treaties and Canada’s Constitution - IndigPoli Editorial

When Commentary Ignores the Law: Indigenous Rights, Oral History, and Canada’s Constitution

---

Land Acknowledgement

First, let’s start this the right way.

This piece was written in Mohkinstsis — now known as Calgary — on Treaty 7 territory. This land is the traditional home of the Blackfoot Confederacy (Niitsítapi), including the Siksika, Kainai, and Piikani Nations; the Tsuut’ina (Tsúutʼínà); and the Îyârhe Nakoda Nations (Bearspaw, Chiniki, and Wesley).

These lands are not abstract to the discussion that follows. They are governed by Indigenous law, memory, and relationship — long before Canada asserted jurisdiction here.

---

Author Positioning

I write this as an Indigenous person with roots in two Nations and two treaty territories — my mother from the Tsuut’ina Nation in Treaty 7, and my father from Peepeekisis Cree Nation in Treaty 4. My work sits at the intersection of Indigenous rights, law, politics, and public discourse. I approach these issues not as abstractions, but as lived realities shaped by history, governance, and responsibility to community.

My family comes from the Turtle Clan of the Midewiwin Medicine Lodge, with roots in Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) and Cree peoples, including the Plains Cree (nêhiyawêwin). My name in traditional Plains Cree syllabics is ᐊᐱᐤ ᐊᓯᒋ ᑭᐁᐧᑎᐣ. I generally reserve the use of my traditional name for Indigenous spaces and conversations. Here, I leave it in syllabics, as it was given.

---

Why Accuracy Matters

When I work on blog posts or editorials, I start with a rough draft — then I step back. I ask whether it reflects the facts, the law, and what I actually believe. Too often, commentary on Indigenous rights skips that second step entirely.

Writers like David Frum continue to frame Indigenous rights as a failed policy experiment, rather than what they actually are: constitutional, legal, and pre-existing. This framing is not new, nor is it neutral. It draws from a long tradition of colonial thinking that has consistently minimized Indigenous law, dismissed oral history, and treated Indigenous governance as an inconvenience rather than a reality.

This blog is not written to chase outrage. It is written to correct the record.

---

Indigenous Governance, Oral History, and Nationhood Before Contact

My parents and traditional leaders taught me early the importance of oral history — not as folklore, but as law, memory, and instruction passed down through generations. What our grandparents and ancestors carried forward was knowledge of governance, diplomacy, and responsibility to community.

Colonial narratives often portrayed Indigenous peoples as primitive, violent, and incapable of self-governance. These portrayals were never accidental. They served to justify colonization, religious conversion, and the seizure of Indigenous lands by presenting Indigenous Nations as peoples who needed to be “saved.” Claims that we were cannibals, constantly at war, or without government were useful distortions — not historical truths.

The historical and archaeological record tells a very different story. Indigenous Nations across this continent maintained sophisticated systems of nationhood, law, and inter-Nation relations long before European contact. Archaeological findings document extensive trade networks spanning thousands of kilometres, with coastal shells from the Atlantic and Pacific found deep in the interior — evidence of long-standing economic and diplomatic relationships. Oral histories describe skilled diplomats, linguists fluent in multiple languages, and widely shared systems of sign language that facilitated communication across vast territories.

Conflict existed, as it has in all human societies, but the idea that Indigenous Nations were locked in constant warfare is greatly exaggerated. In practice, our ancestors negotiated treaties, shared resources, and resolved disputes through established diplomatic protocols. Many later conflicts were intensified by European displacement, as colonial authorities forced Nations into neighbouring territories or imposed reserve boundaries without regard for existing relationships.

One well-documented example stands in direct contrast to the colonial myth. In 1873, the Blackfoot leader Crowfoot adopted the Cree leader Poundmaker (Pîhtokahanapiwiyin) as a deliberate act of diplomacy. This adoption was intended to strengthen peace and kinship between two Nations facing immense pressure from colonial disruption and the collapse of the buffalo economy. Such acts reflect sophisticated political reasoning — not primitive instinct.

Indigenous peoples were never simple societies. We were — and remain — complex Nations, with laws, governance systems, and diplomatic traditions that ensured every member had a role and responsibility. The myth of the “simple savage” collapses under even the most basic examination of Indigenous knowledge, archaeology, and history itself.

---

📦 FACTOID — Indigenous Trade Networks Before European Contact

Long before European arrival, Indigenous Nations operated vast, continent-wide economies. Trade routes connected the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts to the interior Great Plains, moving goods, knowledge, and diplomacy across thousands of kilometres.

Shell Trade as Wealth:
Dentalium shells from the Pacific coast traveled across the Rockies to the Plains, where 2–3 shells could purchase a buffalo robe by the 1800s. Pacific shells (Olivella, abalone) appear as far east as present-day Kansas, while Gulf Coast conch and whelk moved north through the Mississippi Valley into Canada.

How Trade Worked:
Established trade hubs, governed by diplomacy and reciprocity, with standardized measures for fair exchange — clear evidence of sophisticated economic and political coordination thousands of years before European contact.

"Archaeology does not replace oral history here — it corroborates what Indigenous Nations have always known and taught."

---

Infographic: Indigenous Trade Networks 

What the Law Actually Says

Indigenous rights are not symbolic. They are constitutional.

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. These rights were not granted by Canada; they pre-exist Canada. The role of the courts has been to interpret how those rights are upheld within a modern constitutional framework — not to invent them.

Canadian jurisprudence has repeatedly confirmed this reality. Courts have recognized Indigenous title, the duty to consult and accommodate, and the legal validity of oral history. Reconciliation, in Canadian law, is not a moral preference. It is a legal obligation.

---

---

Section 25, Section 35, and the Charter

This is where many commentators get it wrong.

Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures that Charter rights cannot be interpreted in a way that diminishes Indigenous rights. The Charter is not a tool to override Indigenous law or treaty obligations — it exists alongside them.

Together, Sections 25 and 35 form a constitutional safeguard that recognizes Indigenous peoples as rights-bearing Nations, not interest groups or historical footnotes.

---

---

Why “Scrapping” Indigenous Rights Is Almost Impossible

Calls to weaken or eliminate Indigenous rights often ignore constitutional reality.

Fundamental changes to Indigenous rights would require a constitutional amendment — meeting the 7/50 formula (seven provinces representing at least 50% of Canada’s population), along with political consensus that has proven historically unattainable.

This reality was made clear in 1990, when Elijah Harper, an Indigenous MLA, refused consent to the Meech Lake Accord. One elected representative, guided by principle and responsibility, halted a constitutional process that failed to respect Indigenous peoples.

---

---

The Courts Have Already Spoken

The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently upheld Indigenous rights and Crown obligations. These decisions are not outliers — they form a clear legal trajectory:

• Calder v. British Columbia (1973) — Recognized Aboriginal title

• Guerin v. The Queen (1984) — Established Crown fiduciary duty

• R. v. Sparrow (1990) — Defined Section 35 rights

• Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) — Confirmed Aboriginal title to land

• R. v. Marshall (1999) — Upheld treaty livelihood rights

• Haida Nation v. British Columbia (2004) — Duty to consult

• Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (2005) — Treaty consultation affirmed

• Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia (2014) — Declared Aboriginal title to specific lands

• 
  Shot Both Sides v. Canada (2024) — Confirmed Canada breached Treaty 7 obligations

All cases can be look-up on Canada Legal Information Institute (CanLi) 

---

---

Why This Matters — Especially for Youth

For Indigenous youth, misinformation has real consequences. When public figures dismiss Indigenous rights or distort history, it sends a message that those rights are fragile, negotiable, or undeserved.

They are none of those things.

Indigenous youth deserve to know that their ancestors were law-makers, diplomats, traders, warriors, and citizens — and that Indigenous legal traditions continue to shape the constitutional order of this country today.

Education, not outrage, is how we protect that truth. 

_______________________________________________________________________________

Piyesis Consulting - Business, Marketing, Branding (Website Maintenance Notice)

Website Maintenance Notice

January 10, 2026

Thank you for visiting our website. We would like to inform our clients, partners, and visitors that our website will be temporarily offline for a planned maintenance and redevelopment period of approximately 30–45 days.

During this time, we are undertaking important updates to improve site performance, refresh content, and enhance the overall user experience. This work will ensure our website better reflects our services, values, and the evolving needs of those we work with.

Our operations will continue uninterrupted while the website is offline, and we remain available to support clients and respond to inquiries.

You can reach us during this period via:

• Email us and let's talk about how we can help your company or organisation.

We appreciate your patience and understanding as we take this time to strengthen our digital presence. We look forward to welcoming you back soon with a refreshed website and renewed focus.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

---

IInterested in Piyesis Consulting, see our initial offering for services in the image below. 

Inuit Peoples and Greenland's Future - Blog Coming Soon

 

House of Commons Standing on Indigenous and Northern Affairs (INAN) - First Session of the 35th Parliament (2025)

The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs (INAN) reviews, examines and reports on issues affecting First Nations, Inuit, Métis peoples and northerners. 

Monday, June 30th, 2023

By Joshua Brass Fraser, Indigenous Politics (@IndigPoli)

In the House of Commons Standing Committees, members (MPs) are selected based on their experience and interest in specific areas. While Ministers typically do not participate, their Parliamentary Secretaries are involved. Generally, opposition parties assign their shadow ministers/critics to relevant committees.

In the Indigenous and Northern Affairs (INAN) Committee, MPs without specific portfolio assignments may participate due to their background in Indigenous communities or having a significant number of Indigenous constituents in their districts. This diversity enriches the committee's discussions.

The New Democratic Party (NDP), with only seven elected MPs, lacks official party status, limiting their committee participation. Membership on committees is valuable as each member wields voting power and can influence legislation by expediting or delaying it, as well as summoning witnesses for insights, facts and experience on the file, bill or subject the committee is discussing or reviewing.

In the 35th Parliament's first session, the INAN Committee comprises 5 Liberal MPs, 4 Conservative MPs, and 1 Bloc Québécois MP. BQ MP Sébastien Lemire's role is pivotal, potentially influencing decisions within the committee.

Understanding the background and composition of the INAN Committee members provides insight into the diverse perspectives shaping discussions and decisions within the committee.

Below, I break down the background information of INAN Committee members: 

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS (INAN)

 

Liberal Committee Members

Committee Chair Terry Sheehan, MP for Sault Ste. Marie-Algoma has 12.9% Indigenous voters in its electoral district.

Member: Mi'kmaq MP Jaime Battiste is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services with 10.9% Indigenous voters in Cape Breton-Canso-Antigonish, NS. 

 

Member: Phillip Earle has 42% Indigenous voters in his Labrador, NFLD electoral district.

Member: Brendan Hanley is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs. He is the MP for Yukon, which has 22.1% Indigenous voters.   

 

Member: Ginette Lavack is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Services, where 17% of the voters are Indigenous in her St. Boniface-St.Vital, MB electoral district. 

 

Conservative Committee Members

Committee Vice-Chair: MP Jamie Schmale is Shadow Minister for Crown-Indigenous Relations; he represents Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes, ON. The Indigenous voting population for this riding is 2.7%.

 

Member: MP Eric Meilillo is the Conservative MP for Kenora-Kiiwetinoong, ON, which has 40.4% Indigenous voters in his electoral district. He is also the CPC Shadow Minister for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario. 

 

Member: Former Enoch Chief MP Billy Morin, and is Conservative MP for Edmonton Northwest, AB, and is the Shadow Minister for Indigenous Services. Edmonton Northwest has 5.6% Indigenous voters in the electoral district. 

 

Member: MP Bob Zimmer is the CPC Shadow Minister for Arctic Affairs & Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency. Zimmer is the MP for Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies, BC. Their is 15% Indigenous voters in electoral district.

 

*Shadow Minister is a term often used by the Official Opposition in place of Critic.

 

Bloc Québécois Committee Member

Committee Vice-Chair Sébastien Lemire is the Bloc Québécois MP for Abitibi—Témiscamingue which has an Indigenous voter population of 15%. Lemire is Bloc Québécois Spokesperson (aka Critic) for Indigenous Relations and Northern Development.

 

GENERAL INFO - https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/INAN

MEETINGS - https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/INAN/Meetings

 

Why do I always put the Indigenous population of each MP’s riding? As representatives, MPs must consider the diverse makeup of their constituents to ensure inclusive decision-making. Highlighting the number of Indigenous voters in each MP's riding serves as a crucial reminder for them to prioritize the needs of all community members, including Indigenous constituents. This practice encourages accountability and fosters a more inclusive approach to governance.

Note: The information on the Indigenous population in each riding (electoral district) comes from the 2021 Census, transposed on the 2023 electoral district redistribution process. (Source: StatsCan and Elections Canada, 2025)

#INAN #StandingCommitteeonIndigenousandNorthernAffairs #HouseofCommons

#indigpoli #indigmps #firstnation #metis #inuit #35thparl #indigpoli #indigenous

X/Twitter | Facebook | Email @indigpoli 

 

Members

CHAIR

Terry SheehanLiberal

 

VICE-CHAIRS

Jamie SchmaleConservative Sébastien LemireBloc Québécois

MEMBERS

Jaime BattisteLiberal Philip EarleLiberal Brendan HanleyLiberal Ginette LavackLiberalEric MelilloConservative Billy MorinConservative Bob ZimmerConservative