Thank you very much.
What the amendment essentially does is to take away words following “including”, so it takes away some specificity from the study. My sense is that there is always youth unemployment, but I think for the House of Commons, for Parliament, to be relevant, it should be discussing the current situation. The current situation is that since the great recession of 2008, employment has recovered for certain segments of the population but it hasn't recovered for youth. I believe that's why the motion from Ms. Nash refers to the high rate of youth unemployment. It's high relative to the fact that other age groups have not suffered to the same degree, age groups whose employment has rebounded from the great recession.
The second thing that I think is a bit more specific and important to address is the economic impact. Canada, like many other countries over the next 10 years or 20 years, will be having to deal with some very significant demographic changes. For that reason it is very important to recognize that youth unemployment and underemployment have particularly important economic impacts at this time in the history of the country. I think it's important to recognize this by including case ii) in the motion, and I think that is why Ms. Nash included it in the motion. Similarly for case iii) and case iv)—these are subjects that have been brought to the attention of Parliament in the last year or two. It is very timely, so including them in a motion will reassure young Canadians that their representatives in Ottawa, the ones who are paid for by their parents' taxes, are actually addressing the immediate concerns that they are seeing in their everyday lives.
This is why I believe, Mr. Chair, that eliminating these particular cases and leaving behind a rather vanilla motion is not a service to the young people of Canada.