Half a million copies: I'm not putting a price on the protection of human rights, because really there is no price--human rights are very important--but it's also, in my view, with a sense of responsibility on our part that we also begin to understand that half a million copies of this have already been produced.
There are ways of dealing with this in a production and procedural manner. That is, you can start talking about addendums to the actual document, which would mean the insertion of a page or a note that would include that. In fairness, though, that particular guide has already been criticized to the point that it requires revision anyway, not just on this issue but other issues.
In fairness to the people who put the guide together, which was a prestigious group of individuals, this citizenship guide is also not a history book. It's a guide that gives you more or less a sense of country.
Is it a political document? Some people have said it's political document. But my sense is that we have to find a middle ground that can address the concerns that I cited, and that now Olivia Chow, the member for Trinity—Spadina, has cited, and move forward on that. We have to take all things into consideration.
If the minister had said to me that he would in fact consider the insertion of gay rights and gay history in the next edition, and that in essence he and his department would have considered it a serious omission, then I would be quite willing to accept the minister and his department at his word.
Are we happy about the fact that no reference was made? Of course not. A lot of Canadians are not happy about that. But these things do occur. Edits in reports do occur. Unfortunately, this is a serious omission, but it is a revision that has occurred after many years of having the same document. Errors are going to occur.
As a good Liberal, I'm kind of in the middle ground here. I do have a fiscally responsible attitude toward taxation and expenditure--which sometimes the NDP do not understand, unfortunately--but by the same token, I'm not happy about the fact that gay rights and gay history were omitted.
So this is where I'm at. Since I kind of do hold the balance of power, both parties need to kind of come to me with a compromise. Otherwise, they won't get what either of them wants. Usually the Liberal position is the one that is the most moderate and centric, and this needs to be respected, because we are trying to bridge this obvious divide between the right and the left.
Mr. Chairman, I wish I could conclude, but I do think that there has to be a way to address this.
I understand what the member for Trinity—Spadina is attempting to do--a bit late, because I got to it earlier--but there's no question about the fact that we expressed concerns about that omission. We are on the record as expressing concern about that omission.
We also want to give the opportunity, to whomever will revise this citizenship guide in the future, that he or she--or both, I'm sure—should actually begin to take note of the dissatisfaction expressed by various groups in reference to the production of what I think is a very good guide in many ways, but one that falls short in others.
As I said, this is the first major revision made in a long time. The group of individuals, historians, and academics who worked on this should actually be thanked by all members of Parliament, on both sides of the House. But it is of concern.
I don't know how you want to work this, Mr. Chairman. I am caught between two extreme points on the spectrum that have to find ways to compromise to bring a resolution to this issue. I have a feeling that we'll be talking about this until 5:30 p.m. If that happens, it will have to be brought to the next meeting.
The point I am making is essentially the following: that we either clearly come up with a resolution to address this issue, or this meeting, as I can tell by the posturing that is already taking place, will go on for a long time. I certainly don't support that behaviour--