Garnett Genuis
Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“It is getting increasingly harder for young people to find their first job, and for young families to afford their first home and be able to afford to take those critical steps forward in life.”
“I look forward to talking to people and listening to them over the summer. I would encourage colleagues from all parts of the country to also listen to, respect and try to understand the concerns Albertans have.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his kind words. Indeed, I would welcome him, and all members of this House from all parties, to come to Alberta this summer. Let me know. I would be happy to host. Members could spend some time talking to people in our province to understand some of their concerns.”
“This plan includes vital reforms to parental leave to make it easier for parents who are trying to start a family, maintain a connection to work and earn an income at the same time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my best wishes for the summer to all colleagues from all sides. We have fought hard for our constituents, for our convictions and to advance the common good of this country.”
“We have always sought to be productive and constructive by putting forward these good ideas and asking the government to adopt them. Therefore, as we face these ongoing challenges, an affordability crisis and a youth unemployment crisis, will the government take a serious look at what we have put forward, including the Conservative youth…”
The complete record
Every one of 885 lines we hold for Garnett Genuis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 18.
“Mr. Speaker, Canada faces a continuing youth jobs crisis. The government has, unfortunately, with this budget, actually moved in the opposite direction from where we need to go. Before the budget, Conservatives helpfully laid out the Conservative youth jobs plan, which identifies the key things we need to do: unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. Key policies in these areas would help to create jobs and opportunity. They would help to address the issue of a poorly tailored immigration system leading to competition for entry-level jobs. They would help young people get skills that align with the needs of the labour market and enable them to move to where jobs are available in cases where there are geographical mismatches.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to remind the member that we are dealing with a particular topic, Bill C-246 , which deals with consecutive sentencing. I wonder if you could call on the member to follow the rules and discuss the provisions of the bill that is currently before the House. It is a very important one.”
“The Liberals are doubling down on a foreign policy of personal selfishness, autocrat idealization and administrative incompetence, instead of on one that upholds our values and our security interests. The people of Sudan deserve freedom, democracy and civilian administration. They have shown a will to fight for these things themselves. It should not be much to ask for Canada to stop arming their oppressors.”
“Mr. Speaker, the civil war in Sudan has been devastating, and Canadians have been shocked to learn that weapons made in this country have been used in the conflict by the RSF, the same organization responsible for genocide. This is not the first time a diversion has put weapons in the hands of genocidal actors. Canadian-made weapons have also been used by Russia against Ukraine. At a time when our allies are rearming, there is no excuse for allowing Canadian weapons to go to hostile regimes and militias responsible for genocide. The world must work to end the devastating war in Sudan, in particular by stopping the flow of arms to the combatants. The Prime Minister 's trip to the U.A.E. could have focused more on that and less on advancing Brookfield's corporate interests.”
“Mr. Speaker, we obviously disagree with the Bloc Québécois in this regard, but I would like to ask a question about the Liberal Party's position and the discussions that have taken place between the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party. We learned through the media on Monday, and this was confirmed by a Liberal spokesperson, that the government came to an agreement with the Bloc Québécois to move forward with this measure, which we believe is against religious freedom. Can the Bloc Québécois confirm the government's position? It is rather strange that the government does not have the courage to tell us today where it stands. Can the Bloc Québécois confirm that the government stated its position on this issue with the agreement in question?”
“It is a problem across the government, which is a focus not on results but on sending signals. It is the continuation of a Trudeau-esque approach to politics, which is posturing out of concern or affinity for some set of ideas or affiliation with some group that wants some objective, but with no substance and no action in the direction that is described. I can say that this is demonstrative of a mentality. The member could have put forward a bill, but he chose not to. I will leave it there.”
“As such, there is an equal treatment subject to certain limitations or modifications that take into consideration the reality of the costs associated with that transaction. Is the goal of the member to say that a person who donates in kind as opposed to cash should actually get a more generous credit for that donation, or is his goal equalization, with an argument that the current system is in some way not equal? Those actual, specific, important policy questions would not be resolved, because this is not legislation. The hard work of legislating would require answering those questions, but putting forward a motion does not. Again, with great respect for the member, I do not think this is a problem unique to him or unique to any specific individual in the government.”
“15, if they actually wanted to do this and if the member had persuaded his own Liberal colleagues and those who sit in cabinet, then the policy of the government would already have been established and we would have seen the measures moving forward. They chose not to do that and to instead use this motion to signal an interest in something without actually doing it. More fundamentally, the ambiguity around the measure is important to note, because as it stands right now, the ecological gifts program, generally speaking, provides equal treatment of land donations and cash donations. However, there are certain adjustments or modifications that are being made to reflect some of the costs that are associated with an in-kind donation, costs such as appraisal and legal fees.”
“Cabinet says, “We do not actually want to do that, but we want to make it look like we are sympathetic to people who think we should do that, so instead of actually making the change you want to make, we think you should just put forward a motion that presents these good feelings.” Just as I spoke earlier about Schrödinger's pipeline that both exists and does not exist at the same time, Motion No. 15 sort of brings us Schrödinger's Income Tax Act changes; that is, they can be shown to exist in the sense of concern and interest expressed through the motion, but the change has not actually been made. I just note the obvious. If the government actually wanted to do this, it could have done it in the budget. We just had a budget tabled. If the government was serious about the policy in Motion No.”
“Why would a member choose to put forward a vague motion? I think maybe it has a political audience. It is designed to signal that there is a certain practice that they consider praiseworthy, so they want to associate themselves with that practice, show general approval for that practice and associate themselves with the good feelings associated with that practice, but it is a missed opportunity, when we could actually change the law. An elected member of Parliament who does well in the draw has the power to actually change the law with what they put forward. However, to be fair to the hon. member, I suspect that in many cases in the government caucus, the way this happens is that a member comes forward, and I have no proof of this, to cabinet and says, “Here is something I want to do”.”
“It asks the government to recognize the importance of an existing tax credit, to recognize the importance of granting a tax credit equivalent to monetary donations for the donation of land, and to consider amending the Income Tax Act to ensure tax fairness among different types of conservation donations. This is fairly vague. It is non-binding, and it does not require the Government of Canada to do anything. Respectfully, I think that if the member has convictions regarding a particular issue, he could have at least put forward a motion that more precisely directs the government to take certain action. He could have put forward a bill that would effect the change he wants to see occur. He has chosen not to do that. (1850) It is sort of curious to me, why these particular choices were made.”
“I have been unlucky for the previous few Parliaments. I have not had a chance to bring forward a bill to debate. I did a little better in this Parliament, so I will have an opportunity soon to table a bill. I will not tell members what it is yet, but I know that the member for Winnipeg North has already committed to voting for it. Members have a choice of what they can do with their time slot. This member obviously did very well in the random draw. He has an opportunity to put forward a bill or a motion. He put forward a motion regarding the donation of ecological properties. The motion is, I think, in many respects, ambiguous. It does not call on the government to necessarily make specific changes. The nature of a motion does not require those changes.”
“I look forward to a time when we have a Conservative government in office and we are not merely talking about thought experiments for pipelines that might both exist and not exist at the same time, but we can actually have a real pipeline that is helping to deliver the economic development and the job opportunities that our country so desperately needs. On Motion No. 15, this is a private member's motion put forward by a member of the government. Members know that there is a process here where there is a random draw. That random draw determines which members, and in what order, can put forward private members' bills or motions. That draw is very important for members. All of us work hard to get elected. It is quite a thing, as soon as we get here, to, as a result of random chance, be able to move forward a bill or not.”
“He wants to deliver Schrödinger's pipeline, a pipeline that does not exist to some voters, maybe in British Columbia, or members of his British Columbia caucus, and that does exist to other voters in other regions. Notwithstanding the good intentions and the best efforts of the Government of Alberta, we are still very much dealing with Schrödinger's pipeline: that is, with a process that, by design, has built-in veto points. We continue to have a government that is, I think, fundamentally dishonest about these issues, in terms of not offering the clear process that it very much could offer: that is, committing to approve national infrastructure projects that are in the jurisdiction of the national government.”
“Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day in the House. It happens to be my assistant Gelila's birthday, so I think all members would join me in wishing her a happy birthday. As we talk about Motion No. 15, which is not legislation, as I will note later, and which deals with environmental issues, I want to comment briefly on the so-called MOU signed between the Government of Alberta and the federal government and what people are increasingly calling Schrödinger's pipeline. Members will be familiar with the reference to Schrödinger's cat, the thought experiment that if a cat is in a box and subject to certain events or conditions, we can think of the cat as both existing and not existing at the same time. I think this is, in a way, a model for the Prime Minister when it comes to pipeline politics.”
“The fact is, doing it this way, asking the government to think about something, looks like a desire to send a signal of sympathy without actually making a change. I wonder, if the member had the courage of his convictions, why he did not actually propose the change that he wants to put forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, respectfully, I have a follow-up to my previous question. What the member said about the rules of the House is not correct. Members are able to propose private members' bills that spend money; they simply need a royal recommendation, which is the support of cabinet, in order to proceed. The member could have proposed legislation to do this. It might have required a royal recommendation, although, in this case, the concept the member is talking about is not a new expenditure but a change in tax treatment. I do not think that a reduction of taxes without new expenditures even requires a royal recommendation anyway. First of all, the member could have put forward the motion either way if he had the government's support. Secondly, I do not think this even needs a royal recommendation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. We have the opportunity, with slots for private members' bills, to put forward a bill or a motion. The member has chosen to put forward a motion, not a bill, and the motion is asking the government to consider amending the Income Tax Act. I just want to ask the member, if he has specific recommendations with respect to a program, why he did not just put forward legislation to make the change he wants. Does he think it is maybe a bit lacking in ambition to put forward a motion to ask the government to consider doing something, when he has the power, as a member of Parliament, to actually put forward legislation to do that thing he is asking the government to consider?”
“The parliamentary secretary said that this will not affect any current students, but what about future students? What about the high school student who says, “I would love to be a chiropractor”, “I would love to explore the field of acupuncture” or “ I would love to work in a salon, but my family struggles financially, and I will no longer get student grants in these programs.” How is that fair?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague spent a lot of time talking about the Canada summer jobs program. As she knows, this is not a new program. It has in fact existed in this country since I was a very small child, which was a long time ago. However, what is new with the program is that the Liberals have established a very short duration for the jobs; the average is eight weeks, so effectively there are not summer jobs but summer half-jobs for many students, which is not what young people need and not what employers want. The Liberals are shortening the duration in order to suggest that they have created more jobs than they would have if they were normal-length summer jobs. I want to come back to the issue around training and the discriminatory measures introduced in the budget.”
“However, the government is proposing a differential, discriminatory system with respect to training, which is that if someone studies in those critical, in-demand professions where the formation is only available at private institutions, they lose access to student grants, but if they are studying any kind of university program, regardless of how relevant it is to the labour market, they do get those grants. Conservatives think this is unfair. We think this budget moves in the opposite direction and introduces more discrimination and unfairness in the training system. What is the government's response to why it put that discriminatory provision in the budget?”
“It does not seem reasonable to say this to a young person studying traditional Chinese medicine, to be a chiropractor, to work in the beauty industry or to work in other industries where the formation is generally not offered at universities. To say their field is not worthy of student grants, but that somebody who studies philosophy, public policy, as I did, or some other program at a university should have access to a full grant, seems to me like profession prejudice, like discrimination against students who are opting for careers that do not involve a university education. We need to be honouring, dignifying and appreciating the careers that people work hard in, regardless of whether they involve studies at a university.”
“In the post-secondary system, we have public, we have private not-for-profit and we have private for-profit, but the issue is that there are many vocational programs that are simply not available in public institutions. For certain kinds of programs, someone who is interested in a particular career will, as a student, opt to go to a private institution, and there is obviously nothing wrong with that. These are good careers that are needed, and this reflects demand in the labour market. Telling students who are trying to access skills and in-demand professions that they can no longer access student grants because of the institution they are going to, but continuing to offer those same grants at the same level to students at universities, is not fair.”
“We called on the government to fix training by offering relatively more support to students seeking in-demand skills. That is, if students are pursuing studies in a field where there is a desperate need in the labour market for people to do those kinds of jobs, we think it is reasonable for government-funded grants to magnify the market signal to help students see and understand that there will likely be more economic opportunities if they pursue studies in that field. Liberals decided, effectively, to go in the opposite direction, because in the budget on page 217, the government proposed to eliminate student grants for students going to private institutions.”
“Madam Speaker, tonight I am following up on a question I raised previously about the ongoing youth unemployment crisis in this country. Youth unemployment is persistently high, still well over 14%, more than a full percentage point higher than it was a year ago. Over 440,000 young Canadians between 15 and 25 are currently unemployed. In this context, Conservatives put forward our Conservative youth jobs plan, calling on the government to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are, and we identified some very specific proposals for achieving that result. Unfortunately, with this budget, we are not seeing progress; we are seeing the government move backward. I want to highlight tonight, in particular, some significant new problems created by this budget in the area of training.”
“Mr. Speaker, the final petition I am tabling today highlights challenges faced by Ukrainian refugees here in Canada who, overwhelmingly, are working, contributing to Canadian society and, as the war continues, face uncertainty around their status here. Petitioners from my province of Alberta are calling on the federal government to create a clear path to permanent residency for those who are here through the CUAET program, a specialized approach to take into account their particular needs.”
“Disability advocates are magnifying and agreeing with concerns raised at the United Nations about Canada's non-compliance with its international commitments on the rights of people with disabilities as a result of the current situation. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to protect all Canadians whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable by prohibiting medical assistance in dying for those whose prognosis for natural death is more than six months.”
“Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights concerns from the disability community about euthanasia, or medical assistance in dying. The petitioners raise concerns about how making euthanasia available to people with disabilities, the only group of people who can access medical assistance in dying when they are not dying, devalues their lives and negatively impacts their experiences in interacting with the health care system. I know people in this community are deeply concerned about how those living with disabilities are regularly offered MAID by people in positions of authority when they are not seeking it, but seeking other kinds of health or other services.”
“They want to see efforts to boycott Russian oil and gas imports in Canada and Europe, to secure energy agreements with western partners, to increase the supply of military equipment and lethal defensive weapons to protect the territory and human rights of the people of Ukraine, and to provide urgent humanitarian assistance and vital assistance to refugees. It is sad to see that conflict continuing, and we need to press on for a Ukrainian victory, which is important for their security and for our security.”
“Mr. Speaker, the next petition that I would like to present to the House is in response to the ongoing illegal genocidal invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the Putin regime. The petitioners highlight a number of aspects of this invasion. This petition was prepared a little while ago, so there have been further developments beyond what is in the petition, but the asks are very clear and very present, and they are extremely important. The petitioners ask that the House stand with the people of Ukraine in the threat facing Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. They want to see decisive action from the international community against the Putin regime. They want consistent sanctions against the regime without the kinds of loopholes that, sadly, we have seen from the government on titanium and other areas.”
“The rising cost of living makes it harder for young people to afford housing near available jobs and for businesses to attract and retain employees. Persistent youth unemployment weakens Canada's economy and social well-being. Petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to present a clear plan to reduce youth unemployment, developed in consultation with young Canadians, employers and educators, and to report to Parliament on progress toward job creation, training alignment and youth labour market participation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today. The first petition deals with the issue of youth unemployment. I want to thank the petitioners for taking the initiative to get this important issue of youth unemployment before the House. The petitioners observe that youth unemployment is alarmingly high across Canada, leaving many young Canadians unable to secure stable, full-time employment despite their education, skills and ambition. They know that training and skills development programs have not kept pace with the realities of our labour market. The immigration policy has not been effectively aligned with labour market needs, limiting opportunities for young Canadians in their chosen fields.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could clarify the rules around a question, 30 seconds in duration, that begins with a preamble that may seem unrelated to government business but that concludes on a matter that is related to government business. In the past, members have been able to finish—”
“If she is sincere in the professions she has made about respecting and valuing skilled trade workers, could she explain very clearly why she supports a budget that broke the Liberals' promise on the apprenticeship incentive grant and that withdraws funding from students studying at career colleges?”
“Mr. Speaker, the comments of the parliamentary secretary, in particular on skilled trades, are completely disconnected from the provisions in the budget that her government just put forward. She said some nice things about the skilled trades in her comments, and I agree with the nice things she said about the skilled trades. However, I am trying to square her professions of connection there with the fact that the government has broken its promise on the apprenticeship incentive grant and that it is cutting off student support to students who are studying at private career colleges. I hope in this follow-up that I can get just a very direct answer from the parliamentary secretary.”
“Instead, the government would really deploy a kind of profession prejudice to shut students out, who are studying for these kinds of vocations at these kinds of institutions. It is discriminatory. It is not right, and it would risk exacerbating shortages in these professions, which would hurt our economy down the line. Therefore, at a time of youth unemployment being very high, budget 2025 would make the situation worse by harming students, especially those in the trades and in other kinds of vocations that involve training outside of universities. Why would the government do this?”
“I talked earlier today about courses in the beauty industry and in alternative health, such as chiropractors and traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, where, overwhelmingly, people who are pursuing these disciplines go, and must go, to private institutions. That is their only option, yet in these areas, where there is labour demand and where people want to pursue these careers, the government would completely and arbitrarily shut out these students. Our jobs plan actually called for a completely different approach. It called for support through students' grants to be aligned with the needs of the labour market. It called for having evaluations done of what the labour market needs are and to use student grants to magnify the needs of the labour market.”
“The Liberals, in fact, would put more money into helping research councils help universities to attract foreign researchers to come to universities, but they would pull resources away from students who are attending career colleges. There would be nothing for polytechnics. There is a broken promise on the apprenticeship grant, and now the government would completely cut out of the system students who study at career colleges. An important point to note is that there are many good vocations that students might pursue where overwhelmingly the only options are private institutions. If someone wants to study history or psychology, women's studies, law or medicine, then yes, they would most likely go to a public institution, but there are many other areas, such as those in trade skills and in specific professions.”
“Unfortunately, budget 2025 not only fails to address this problem, but also contains specific provisions that would set us back. One of the things that I want to highlight tonight is how the Liberals completely broke their promises when it comes to the apprenticeship grant. Conservatives had proposed renewing it. Liberals had said they would renew it, and in fact they said they would expand it, yet there is no funding for that in the budget whatsoever. Most apprentices study at polytechnics, and there would be no support for polytechnics in this budget. The budget actually goes further. On page 217 in the budget, the government is now proposing to completely withdraw any student grants in general from students who go to private institutions.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada faces an ongoing youth unemployment crisis. The youth unemployment rate is over 14%, which is more than a full point higher than where we were a year ago. According to the latest job numbers, more than 440,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed. This continues to be a very bad situation for youth unemployment. Over 14% unemployment for young people is a bad number. It is not a good number, very clearly, and we need a strong response to address the youth unemployment crisis. This is precisely why Conservatives put forward the Conservative youth jobs plan prior to the budget, calling on the government to take specific action to address the youth unemployment crisis. Our plan had four pillars: unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are.”
“Mr. Speaker, that excellent question gives me an opportunity to salute the important work the Parliamentary Budget Officer is doing. He has illustrated how the government has been fudging the numbers. Sadly, when one fudges around, one is going to find out. There are going to be negative consequences from the fudging of numbers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is now being targeted by the government because of his work. We should be giving him the mandate and the independence to do the work he needs to do, exposing the abuses of the government.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will certainly examine the Bloc's bill on this issue. Obviously, this is a new proposal, but I agree that the government has not done what it takes to put an end to forced labour. I, too, have a lot of objections to the Prime Minister 's change in rhetoric on the Chinese government. If the government has decided to stop presenting ideas to put an end to forced labour, it may be because this Prime Minister wants to have a different relationship with the Chinese government, despite the reality of the human rights issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and disappointed by that question, because after last week, I was sure I convinced the member to see the light and join us in defending everyday Canadians, standing up for fiscal responsibility and fighting back against the pernicious profession prejudice that characterizes this budget. I am happy to try again to help the member see reason. I look forward to the fight of the century happening every few months at different institutions across the country. I am happy to take the member up on that. I hope, though, that he and other members will think about the specific criticisms I have made on this budget and end their profession prejudice.”
“(1110) I move: Amendment That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, since the bill fails to: (a) implement a budget so Canadians can have an affordable life; (b) consider that every dollar the Liberal Government spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians in the form of higher taxes and inflation; (c) bring down the deficit to the level Liberals promised in their last fiscal update, which promised $42 billion last year; (d) scrap hidden taxes on food, including the industrial carbon tax on farmers, the food packaging tax that adds billions in costs, and the fuel standard tax that adds 17 cents per litre to diesel and gasoline for farmers; (e) end the inflation tax by bringing down the cost of government instead of printing money to pay Liberal bills; and (f) include a plan for any oil and gas pipelines that would strengthen our nation's economy and get our resources to market.””
“Why are subsidies available for any university program, no matter how irrelevant they are to the labour market, while they are being withdrawn from in-demand vocational programs that happen to be offered at private institutions? Conservatives recommended the opposite approach. We recommended an alignment between the needs of our labour market and the level of student grants, recognizing the universal dignity of all work and the potential of student grants to help magnify market signals. This is the more hidden agenda of the budget: an attack on vocational programs and on in-demand jobs by a government drowning in profession prejudice and elite snobbery.”
“Because this budget proposes to cut student grants for private, for-profit institutions, most students studying acupuncture and other forms of traditional Chinese medicine, and many students studying other kinds of health disciplines, such as chiropractors and massage therapists, would be cut off from financial support. Many people in and outside the Chinese community want to access various kinds of traditional Chinese medicine practitioners and should be able to do so. This is a good job, and it reflects the dignity of work and the breadth and beauty of Canadian multiculturalism. However, Liberals are making a choice to propose a policy that would make it more difficult for young people to pursue studies in traditional Chinese medicine, especially given the duration of study required. Why are Liberals attacking Chinese medicine?”
“I know how hard these folks work. My barber actually follows me on social media, and when my hair gets too long, he messages me and tells me it is time to come in. He is a great guy. These are proud professionals, and they benefit from being able to afford good training that often happens to come from private, for-profit institutions. This budget makes it harder for people to access those professions. One can say what they like about Justin Trudeau, but at least he would have known never to attack the beauty industry. Another profession attacked by budget 2025 is traditional Chinese medicine practitioners.”
“However, there are many good jobs in areas where there is public and labour market demand, where it just so happens that public institutions have not offered these programs and private, for-profit institutions have filled the gap. This policy change therefore does not just affect institutions; it makes it harder for young people from low- and middle-income backgrounds to pursue studies in certain areas, and it creates critical gaps in these sectors. This is the pernicious practical outworking of professional prejudice in policy. Let me give a few examples of professions affected by this change. This week, I met with representatives from BeautyCouncil. It represents a wide variety of hard-working professionals who cut hair, do makeup and generally help others look good. They have got a harder task in some cases than in others.”
“What kind of fit of elite snobbery could motivate a government to target attacks on career colleges at a time when many Canadians need the benefits of targeted vocational programs to get the skills employers are looking for? Page 217 of the budget announces the intention of the government to make students attending private, for-profit institutions ineligible for student grants, making studies at these institutions inaccessible to many low- and middle-income students. This cut is targeting students at particular institutions, but it is not job-neutral in its implications. There are many specific kinds of jobs where training is generally not available at public institutions. If someone wants to get a history degree, law degree or women's studies degree, they have got a lot of public institutions to choose from.”
“Liberals promised to support apprentices, but instead, they have nothing for apprentices directly and nothing for polytechnics, where the majority of apprentices are trained. Liberals pumped an enormous amount of money into attracting foreign researchers for universities at a time when many Canadian post-secondary graduates are unemployed or working outside their field, and they could find nothing for most apprentices despite skill shortages in critical areas in the trades. It gets worse. Budget 2025 specifically targets career colleges. It attacks what they do, and it withdraws support from students who attend them. Why would the Liberals choose now to attack career colleges?”