Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate Mr. Julian's kind comments on amendment BQ‑4, as well as his commitment, if you will, to solidify it.
It is often said that the best is the enemy of the good. In the case of the sub-amendment proposed by Mr. Julian, I feel that it is more of a statement than a concrete addition. It looks like a declaration of good intent.
The principles that are recognized in amendment BQ‑4, and those that guide the journalistic profession include what is proposed in Mr. Julian's sub-amendment. Independence, fairness, rigour in the treatment of news and sources are all principles that fight against the infringement of the rights of certain minority groups, as well as racism or misinformation. This is also part of journalistic rigour and the principles that journalists respect. Correcting mistakes quickly and transparently is also part of what we call rigour in news reporting. One cannot be against virtue. As we say back home, we are not against apple pie, Mr. Chair.
The fact remains, however, that what is proposed in the sub-amendment is already included in amendment BQ‑4. A rigorous and professional journalist, just starting out in the profession, already has these values. They are part of those that they will have to apply throughout the exercise of their profession.
It is difficult to be against a sub-amendment which reiterates some of the content of the amendment. So I would find it hard to say I am against it, but, on the other hand, I find it hard to say it is relevant.
I will leave it at that and listen to my colleagues' comments on it.