Thank you for the question.
It was based on the first round of testimony, where we heard that we needed national strategies for dementia. There was a real weighting to dementia. We heard from the witnesses, the caregivers, and others that this was their focus. But I heard today that a big part of Mr. Nicholson's intent was to deal with Alzheimer's disease specifically, so I'm going to withdraw them. I'm not going to table them. They aren't on the table. I think we should do the clauses.
I'm torn between if every single disease advocacy group wants to have.... I mean, we can deal with every single type of cancer, every single type of diabetes, or every single type of anything, but is it a question of disease emphasis or the condition? It's like palliative care. I think we need a national strategy for palliative care, absolutely, and the causes of people being in palliation are multiple.
Likewise, we need a national strategy for dementia. The causes of dementia are multiple, but based on what I heard from Mr. Nicholson in terms of his intent, I think the need to leave in the reference to Alzheimer's is important. That's why I'm not tabling them. I'll make some changes through these to rebalance that a bit where I think it is a bit too weighted to Alzheimer's. Is that fair enough?
Thank you.