I'm getting to that. I was just laying out the fact that we want to deal with the APF today. We want to come back to the motion of Mr. Atamanenko after we've done the APF, so it's unfortunate we can't do that. I guess the farm organizations know that we've taken this stance and we want to move ahead.
I will get to the motion by Mr. Atamanenko, and I'm actually really disturbed by this because I think in the seven years that I've been here, this is the first time I have seen a motion that expects us to do the bidding of a third party that's not associated directly with the committee. I went back and I checked the reports that we've done, and I think I have 24 pages of them here, or whatever. It goes back many years. We've never done this, taken up a third-party position that we're going to specifically support. I'm very concerned that we're setting a precedent here that is completely inappropriate.
I'm not surprised that Mr. Atamanenko does this because I noticed when he started off his comments, the words were “I feel” and “we feel”, when he was talking about the NFU and his own position about the barley plebiscite. I know there's a general perception, particularly in the west, that the National Farmers Union is the agricultural wing of the NDP and that the NDP is the political wing of the National Farmers Union. We've certainly seen that I think in this committee over the last few months, but it has never been as blatant as it is in this motion or in the private member's bill that Mr. Atamanenko has brought forward.