004. ADAP, ‘Empowerment,’ and the Math: A Conversation with Dr. Gillian Petit

Episode Summary

Gordon (wills & estates lawyer) and Annie (disability advocate) sit down with Dr. Gillian Petit—an economist and JD—to unpack Alberta’s proposed Alberta Disability Assistance Program (ADAP) and what it could mean for people currently on AISH. The government frames ADAP as “empowering” people to work while keeping needed supports. Dr. Petit puts that claim under a microscope: lowered base benefits, smaller earnings exemptions, missing policy details (clawback rate!), new administrative hurdles, and the reality that only ~16% of AISH recipients currently have employment income. Her takeaway: for most, ADAP may reduce choice—not increase it—and leave many worse off.

Why this matters

• Money: ADAP’s proposed max benefit ($1,740) is lower than AISH ($1,901/$1,940 in 2026).
• Work claims: Government says you can “earn more,” but exemptions shrink and the math may not add up for many.
• Process & power: Forced transition to ADAP, re-applications to return to AISH, and a medical review with no appeal raise serious fairness concerns.

Featured Guest

Dr. Gillian Petit — Senior Research Associate, Department of Economics, University of Calgary. JD (Queen’s), PhD (Economics, UCalgary). Research focus: income supports, poverty reduction, and how policy design impacts real people. Author of the analysis: “The New Alberta Disability Assistance Program: Will It Deliver on Its Promises?”

Key Takeaways

• “Empowerment” vs. reality: Making ADAP the default and forcing re-application to AISH removes choice rather than expands it.
• The numbers problem: With a lower max benefit and a much smaller earnings exemption (and an undisclosed clawback rate), many recipients must earn ~$1,800–$2,500/month just to be better off than on AISH—an unrealistic bar for most.
• Who actually works now? Only ~16% of AISH recipients report employment income, a share that’s been flat for years—even when exemptions were previously made more generous.
• Administrative barriers matter: Re-medicalization and a non-appealable medical review risk excluding people whose disabilities are episodic or complex.
• Policy alternative exists: Improve AISH (supports + fairer clawbacks) without creating a parallel program and wholesale transition.

Memorable Lines

• “The choice isn’t expanded—it’s reassigned.”
• “Generous rhetoric doesn’t pay rent; policy math does.”

Resources & Links

• Dr. Gillian Petit’s article (Substack): The New Alberta Disability Assistance Program: Will It Deliver on Its Promises? [link]
• Alberta Government ADAP Discussion Paper [link]
• AISH program overview & current exemptions [link]
• Contact your MLA / Minister of Seniors, Community and Social Services [link]

Call to Action

• Subscribe on your favorite podcast app to catch upcoming deep dives on eligibility, transitions, appeals, and planning.
• Share your story: We’re gathering real experiences from Albertans affected by AISH/ADAP. Email or message us on social.
• Download our ADAP White Paper for a plain-language overview and talking points when contacting your MLA.

Disclaimer

This episode provides general information, not legal advice. For guidance on your situation, please consult a qualified professional.

Transcript

Welcome back to the We Advocate podcast. In this podcast, we take a closer look at

the laws and policies that shape the lives of people with disabilities in Alberta.

My name's Gordon Van der Leak. I'm the founder and managing lawyer of Vanderleek

Law. And as part of that practice, part of my law practice, I work every day with

people who rely on programs like ACH or the assured income for the severity of

handicapped. And I'm Annie, a disability advocate working with families and with

people with disabilities. Today we're diving deep into Alberta's proposed Alberta

Disability Assistance Program, RADAP, the government's plan to replace ACH for many

people starting in 2026. So This program, if we look at the material that's

available from the government, says that ADAP will empower Albertans with disabilities

to pursue meaningful careers while keeping the support they need. But is that really

true? Our guest today has been studying those claims closely. Dr. Gillian Petit is

an economist and researcher whose work focuses on income supports,

poverty reduction and policy design. She recently wrote a powerful article titled the

new Alberta Disability Assistance Program, will it deliver on its provinces? And let's

just say her findings have raged a lot of red flags. From lower benefit rates to

more administrative hurdles and misleading talk about higher earnings exemption, Dr.

Petit argues that ADAP may actually reduce empowerment and make many Albertans worse

off. We had a great conversation with her, and so let's jump into that conversation

now.

Well, we have a special guest today on the We Advocate podcast, and it's my

pleasure to introduce our listening audience to Gillian Petit.

I was saying to my team earlier that this was a day, this was a calendar event

this week I'm looking forward to because it's sort of a kindred spirit. I think in

the sense that you have a JD and you are an economist. I had my major in

undergrad was an econ. So I think we get to talk about the issues of AISN,

the new ADAP program from that perspective.

So we look forward to that discussion. Any some first comments and then Gillian will

get you to introduce yourself to our audience. Yeah, I think it's exciting that

you're here and that you can help to give some of the research on the red flags

and stuff that were showing up with a new program that's coming and I can't wait

to hear what you have to say. Well, thank you both for having me here. So for our

listeners, my name's Jillian Petit. And as Gordon said, I have a JD from Queens

University, as well as a PhD in economics from the University of Calgary. I'm

currently a senior research associate in the Department of Economics at the University

of Calgary. And for about the past eight years, I've been working on research on

income and social supports, both in Alberta and across Canada. And a lot of my

research that I've been working on really worked focused on looking at how we design

and implement social and income support in a way that's both inclusive and that

creates real opportunities for the people that they're meant to serve. So I'm really

excited to be here today to talk about AASH and ADAP and how ADAP will or will

not, more likely. Create real opportunities for people. Well, what I appreciate about

your, your background is I think you've contributed to the, yeah,

contributed to the conversation and an interesting analysis from that article you

wrote just a bit ago on your, and have published on your substack.

So we will in the show notes put a link where people could sign up to read the

specific article, but we're also want to get into that and get your in -person

thoughts versus just posting the article. So I guess as we're looking at the,

I guess some of the topics to cover, the first one I thought we would cover that's

identified in your paper, your prior analysis, is the idea of empowerment, because

that has come up in the discussion paper with the government, right? They've talked

about that this is, in fact,

going to be a tool to empower the disability community and provide them opportunities

for work and all the rest of it. We'll, you know, talk about some of the details

of that in a second. And in our prior episodes, we, we were reviewing the, you

know, some of the background information for that. But I think, yeah,

maybe if, if you want to address, let's focus, I guess, your initial thoughts and

comments with regard to what is, what is this, the proposed ADAP program and the

changes to the ACE program, right? So they're changing from, or creating now two

programs you're part of. If you have a disability as an Albertan, you're going to

be either on ADAP or on age, depending on your ability to work.

while continuing to receive the supports they need. And even the Honorable Jason

Nixon, who's currently the Minister of Assisted Living and Social Services, so he's

the guy who's in charge of ADAP and age. He's been quoted as saying that people

with disabilities shouldn't have to choose between getting the support they need and

having the opportunity to pursue a meaningful career. Now, all that rhetoric, it

sounds really great. It sounds like something we want. For Albertans with disabilities

who want to work and can work, and inclusive and impact.

that might not include traditional workforce 40 hours a week type of opportunities

they might want to. They might not want to work. They can't work. They might want

to pursue a non -traditional career path. And part of the proposal with ADAP is that

when ADF comes in, all persons on age will be moved to ADAP,

all right? So ADAP is going to be the default program. And by telling people that

they have to be on ADAP and they have to pursue employment opportunities,

removes choices from people. And it forces persons with disabilities who have low

income. It forces them to pursue employment opportunities in order to be financially

better off, like a point we'll come back to, whether they want to or not. In

addition, under ADAP, since everyone's been being forced onto ADAP,

if you want to reapply for ACE, because you have, and again, this comes from the

government discussion guide, if you have a disability where you cannot work, so you

want to move back onto age, you're going to be forced to reapply for age. So

you'll have to fill out a new disability's medical review that has to be filled up

by a medical practitioner. And then that goes to a medical review board to make a

determination of whether you can be moved on to age. And that decision by the

medical review board is not going to be appealable. So this is another way in which

the ADAP is going to remove the choice from individuals of whether they want to be

on ADAP or age. And that choice is going to be in the hands of medical

professionals and bureaucrats. So in a way, Jason Nixon's quote becomes true.

People don't have to choose between the support they need and employment

opportunities. The choice is being made for them. They're being told they have to

choose employment opportunities. So this is not empowering for persons with

disabilities.

Yeah, like I think what I'm seeing, I had talk to you about the fact that I'm

getting calls every day asking questions about it. And I think what it's doing is

instead of empowering, it's creating anxiety as to them feeling like,

but what if I can't work? Someone's telling me, but I have to, but I just don't

have the ability to do that. And they don't seem to understand that, that even if

I wanted to work, doesn't mean I can. And so I find that instead of empowering,

it's actually making them feel smaller and feeling more anxious.

Yeah, and the whole, what's interesting is the forced transition,

right? It's what the program is not, well, if you can apply to be part of ADAP,

and that may allow you to earn more money, but is in fact, like there's a

wholesale move, and then you have to apply to get back on AASH, right? and

are working. Yeah, that's correct. So there's, as of June 2025, there is just over

79 ,000 Albertans receiving age, and about 13 ,000 of those had employment income.

So a very small percentage. 16 % of current age recipients have employment income.

That means 84 % of age recipients aren't working. Yeah,

which is interesting to say that, you know, perhaps part of the work of the, or I

guess the policy behind the government is they must feel that there's more

opportunity for people to work of the 84 % and saying,

well, if you would work, this is a program which will allow you to earn more,

earn more money. But certainly, and we've talked about this in other programs or in

other episodes, that there already is systems in place,

rules in place in the regulations that allow people to earn employment income while

on the age program. So it certainly is not the case that the age program doesn't

encourage people to work. In fact, those exemption amounts have increased over time

when various governments have said, we want to encourage people, and if you make

money, you get to keep more of that in your own pocket because some of it will be

fully exempt or partially exempt. There's a limit to that. But it's interesting that

there's solution for, I guess, the perspective that the 16 % could make more money

and or there's a portion of the 84 % based on your analysis that should be working,

you know, I guess we're left to, to conclude that that's really what they're trying

to accomplish from a policy perspective. But looking at it also,

you know, if you focus on the 16%, that's, as you say, a small percentage. So if

that's where the problem is, we want to allow the 16 % to make more money if

they're actually able to work, which is a whole other issue, is are they going to

find a job where they can earn more money? And we'll talk about the number

crunching in a bit.

But it's interesting, when I read that in your paper, I hadn't heard that stat

before. So I just want to emphasize it for our listeners because it was new to me.

I mean, you sort of intuitively know not everybody on age can work, but there it

is, 16. I think it was like 16 .4%. Yeah, and I would just add that 16 % hasn't

changed over about the last six years. Throughout the last six years, it's been 16 %

of age clients have employment income. Also, there is evidence out there that, as

you mentioned, the earnings exemptions have changed over time to help those who are

working earn more without being kicked off of age. So there's a really great journal

publication out there, specifically on age, on that earnings exemption change in 2012.

And it showed that when the earnings exemption were made more generous for people,

people who were earning did earn more money, but people who weren't in the labor

force on age did not economically, meaningfully jump into the labor force. It

suggests that people on age who want to work and can work are already working.

Yeah, and I think when you go back to sort of the Aisha application to start with,

right, they have to be able to prove to start with that they can't earn a living.

Again, not that they can't work, but that they can't earn a living. And I find

that when you talk about the empowerment piece, what it tends to do now is to kind

of prove to them that what are they looking at? They're looking at something that I

am not able to do. Like if you look at the individual, all of a sudden it's

pointing out in a very negative way

that you're on this program. We think you should do this. And I think the anxiety

piece I spoke about before is very much about them now feeling like, but they're

asking me to do something that I'm just not able to do, but they're making me look

at that as a possibility. and of course that raises anxiety.

So I, yeah, I think when you look at the numbers, your numbers speak volumes on

what's being presented is really not a realistic sort of picture.

Yeah, I would just add to that too. There is another paper out there that suggests

that barriers to programs like this new medical review panel without the appeal,

which is going to be a new barrier, is actually a huge cost,

cost to people. It's a bigger cost than having too low of benefits. Too many people

hit these access barriers and just, you know, they don't apply or they don't try

Because it's a lot of work, it's time consuming, it's difficult, it's stigmatizing.

And that's a bigger cost to people with disabilities than having too low of a

benefit. And there is evidence to show this. Well, we'll see if we can secure those

papers and put those in the show notes where people can read that. But that's

interesting, right? Because you would have thought,

Had you increased the exemption, somebody on the cusp of, you know,

wanting to work, that would be the incentive. But it didn't change the numbers,

right? So the reality would be, you know, I take it from there. I think the

analysis is, well, those numbers are probably going to stay the same going forward.

If we're looking at what is the breakdown of the 79 ,000 people that are on there,

that are on age, right, and their ability to work. And I guess just to emphasize

before we move into the next section where we're going to talk about kind of what

are the yearnings. And I know you've done some analysis. In the absence of detail,

you've had to do some analysis on the number side of it. So we'll move to that in

a minute. But just to emphasize something we've talked about before is that you

think a due process,

in the history of our jurisprudence, right? That you have a right to appeal if you

think the decision was wrong. And every now and then you read appeal decisions. They

cite an error of law or a mistake that was made in the process. We've experienced

that even in our own family that we've had to go through appeal processes. The

point being, and Annie, you've seen that, I think, a tremendous amount in your

practice is that a lot of times the answer is no to begin with and families need

help to advocate to be able to say, well, okay, let's have another person take a

fresh look at it. We don't think we were heard or that there's been a good hearing

with regard to, with regard to that. So the fact that there is no appeal from

that, that worries me significantly in terms of the lack of due process. As we're

talking about that doesn't feel empowering, right? When you're in a situation like

that and looking at it from a legal perspective going, okay, you got people

appointed by the government who presumably they're going to be independent, but they

are there by virtue of the government and getting paid by the government to make a

medical assessment. We don't know who are the people that are going to be on this

board, presumably people with a medical background and somebody you understands

disability. But there's a lot of questions with regard to that. And if we're looking

at saying, can we make the Aish program in general, as it is right now, because

ADAP's coming in in July. So when I say AESH, I mean, you know, the current

program, how can we make it more responsive and or empowering to Albertans with long

-term disabilities? that wouldn't be a hallmark of a program you're putting together.

So it does beg the question, okay, well, then why? Like, why are they doing that?

Why are they, you know, maybe the, the concern would be there's just too many

people on H and we can't afford it. They're not coming out and saying that because

they're actually, they're touting the fact that they're putting all sorts of new

money into the program to regarding all these changes. But it's another layer of

bureaucracy, certainly on top of that. I don't know, just give you a chance to have

felt like a little bit of a ramble on my part, but a serious concern, and I, you

know, we'll see what the actual rules say, but I mean, in their discussion paper,

they kind of have it in bold, right? They're, they're, it's pretty clear they've

thought about it. And that's, that's a, that's a significant change in the current

circumstances. There's always rights of appeal.

Appeals are not always successful, but you have a right to have your argument looked

at afresh or to have it renewed. And that's part of the social service system and

that's being stripped away. Right. 100 % agree. By taking away that appeal process,

as well as forcing everyone onto Asia. This program is not empowering at all.

You know, I can only hypothesize and guess why the government is doing this, but it

definitely doesn't feel like empowerment. And with regards to spending, I know that

the government is spending more on employment supports, and that's been baked into

the budget already. So if you go look at the provincial government budget, those

employment supports are in there as a cost. What's not in the budget is the

reduction in spending that's going to come from ADAP. You mean sort of the reduction

in the monthly benefits that are going to correct, to eligible recipients,

okay. And they haven't, I don't think they've produced any analysis on that from

what you've seen. Not from what I've seen, no. Okay. So that's maybe a good segue

to move into the other topic, which is to kind of get into your quantitative

analysis, right? So, you know, we're talking about due process and lack of appeals

harking to your legal background, but now shifting to your economics analysis,

is take us through, I guess, some of the key points that you concluded when you

analyzed sort of the numbers. And I, you know, I think you're,

yeah, I'd love to dive into that and just your reflections on the government's

numbers or what are you seen in the numbers and how it's, how it's going to impact

Albertans with long -term disabilities. Yeah. So the government claimed that ADAP is

going, that Albertans on ADAP are going to be able to earn more from working while

continuing to receive the financial benefits. That's a quote, right? So I wanted to

know the truth of that statement. So I used the material that they put out to

understand if this was true or not.

So I kind of want to take you on a bit of a deep dive here, but to understand

what's going on with the benefits, we need to know a couple of how benefit levels

work. So obviously people have employment income, Right. And then your benefit levels,

though, are determined by three policy parameters, independent of your employment

income. Okay? So these policy parameters are set in regulations by the government.

The first policy parameter we need to know about is called the maximum benefit

level. So this is the maximum benefit someone can get if they're not working. So if

they've zero employment income. Under AASH, the maximum benefit level is $1 ,901 a

month right now. Under ADAP, they're proposing that the maximum benefit level is

going to be $1 ,740 a month. So that's $200 a month, less than the H maximum

benefit level. Now, the next policy parameter we need to talk about is the earnings

exemption. The earnings exemption is how much employment income you can make before

you have your benefits reduced. Yeah, so under H currently, people are sing.

we need to talk about is the clawback rate. Okay, so once your employment income

passes that earnings exemption, your benefits start to scale up. Now, under Aish,

we have what's called a kinked clawback rate. So the first, about $1 ,000, your

clawback creates 50%, and then your clawback rate increases to 100%. So under the

100 % clawback rate, what this means is that For every additional dollar of

employment earnings you make, your age benefit gets reduced by exactly $1 by the

same amount. So under ADAP, we don't actually know what the clawback rate is.

This is the number that's missing in all the government policy discussion documents,

but it's the one that they've been making the claims about. They've been claiming

that people would be able to keep more of their income, presumably because the

clawback rate will be more generous. So I used the numbers that were given in the

discussion.

If we take the maximum benefit level, the earnings exemption, and the clawback rate

altogether, we get two big implications. The first big implication is that for people

who don't work, they're going to be financially worse off under ADAP compared to H.

Okay? And the second big implication is for people that do have employment income,

they're going to have to work until they receive a specific amount of employment

income to be financially better off under ADAP than age. So if they don't have a

high enough employment income, they can still be worse off financially under ADAP

compared to age. So my best estimate suggests that people are going to have to work

between, are going to have to earn between $1 ,800 a month and about $2 ,500 a

month to be financially better off under ADAP compared to age. And to put this into

perspective, people are going to have to work something like a minimum wage job for

25 hours. And this can be a really high threshold for persons with disabilities to

meet.

And again, just to bring it back to your point, we know that only 16 % of age

clients had employment to income in June 2025. So this means that 84 % of age

clients are probably going to be worse off because either they're not going to have

employment income and be financially worse off. They're going to have to go find a

job where they have sufficient employment income to make themselves better off or

else they're going to be financially worse off or they're going to have to reapply

to age. That's 84 % of people. Well, and yeah,

when you say those numbers, it's scary, right? because that those 84 %,

like, we're just talking about their ability to work. It doesn't talk at all about

the complexity or their ability to actually maintain a job or even if they were

able to do that for a period of time and then all of a sudden lose it, they

would be back down to that 1740. And that is a very common thing that's happening.

and even if they were able to work at all. From that 16 % that you're talking

about, like do you have any numbers as far as like from that 16 % like how much

are they working? Because you threw out the 1800 to 2 ,500 that they need to make

in order to maybe make it better. But from that 16%,

I have a feeling it's quite a low percentage that's actually even in that number.

Yeah, that's a fair point. So there's no publicly available data on how much -ish

clients who are working, what their average earnings are. So we don't actually know

those numbers. But we do know that in Canada, so if we take Canada more broadly,

for persons with disabilities who work, over half of persons with disabilities who do

work earn less than 40 ,000 a year. Okay. So if we, if we just import those

numbers, say, into the age program, even then, we're looking at,

I would say, two -thirds, three -quarters somewhere in that of age clients, not having

a high enough employment income to be financially better off under ADAP. So when

we're looking at the 84 %, we're actually looking at a higher percent that actually

are going to be worse off than than they are right now.

in the place we live, which is Calgary. I know it's, you know, it's going to be

different in smaller towns and in different cities within Alberta. It's not all

uniform, rural versus urban. But it's suffice to say that, that, you know,

again, looking at just economic factors, we're looking at some of the macro economics

that are going on. We live in inflationary times. We've been in that period of, of

high inflation, historically speaking, for some time, and we all see it. You go back

to your local grocer and you look at something you bought six months ago and you're

going to, it's how much now, right? You know, that there's this sense of, oh my

goodness, it's going up and my limited dollars are not going as far. So if we look

at the practicalities for the majority of people who are going to be affected as

per your quantitative analysis, it's going to be, they're worse off, right? That

there's, like, it's harder to stretch that dollar.

Or they're, that's sort of a real -life struggle is how do I make ends meet?

We certainly, I mean, it rings true to me, but something I've heard on the town

halls, people stating that, well, my rent's going up, right, that landlords are

increasing rent. I mean, most of the people in Asia are not going to own real

estate. They're not going to own their home. It's not like they have a fixed

mortgage, that they have constant housing costs, right? The housing costs are

increasing on that. I mentioned food, but just costs of medication,

just costs in general. You know, we see it in our monthly budget, right? You're

just, you're spending more money. Um, so for the person on age, which is, you know,

not only are they not receiving certain benefits, um, you know, for example, with

the Canada disability benefits, with that $200 is being clawed back. We'll tackle

that on another episode. But there, the projection is that in 20,

you know, once they're transitioned into the program, they're going to be, they're

going to be making less money. And they're potentially going to be earning less

because the income exemption is lower, right? It's going to 350. They have said that

number, right? So the current, for a single person, the current number is 1 ,072,

right? For employment income where that's going now to 350. Well, that's, again, we

don't know where, like, we don't see the details for the,

how we get staggered. But that, if you look at it, try to take a step back and

look at the analysis. One could say, well, all things being equal, the majority of

people are going to be worse off. There may be a small percentage of people who

can actually work and earn more. But But I don't know that really the current

system was causing them just to stay at home and do nothing, right? I mean, one

would have thought they would have been working and earning that income. So we'll

have to evaluate that as it goes on. But yeah, that's a significant concern on the

practical basis of people are worse off. So there's, I guess, two aspects to what

I'm saying, maybe to try to summarize and then maybe you can react to it.

there's Not necessarily the, there's, for most people,

it's not as if they're going to be able to earn more money. And if they're getting

less money, it's going to be harder to make ends meet, right? Yeah, I'd agree. And

to put this into a bit of perspective, if you're currently on age and getting the

CDB and getting your age clod back by the CDB amounts, you're making only 78 % of

the low income threshold. So these people are already living in poverty,

they're only at 78, they're only earning 78 %, their incomes only at 78 % of what

they need to get past that low income threshold. When we move on to ADAP, for

people who receive ADAP, who have no employment income, but receive ADAP, the CDB

and the CDB clawback, they're only going to get 70 % of the low income threshold.

So we're moving from percent, which was already hard, to 70 percent, which is going

to be even harder. We're going the wrong way. Well, and even with, you know,

the amount now, the 1901,

like, people are having a very hard time making ends meet on that. And then,

like, $200 is a lot of money for someone who already is that is,

yeah, below the poverty line, as you said, right? and so um

Um, yeah, the number is so low and, um,

and I can't see how someone is going to make it on that amount. Yeah, yeah,

agreed. Yeah. So as we kind of wrap up this, this part of it, I think this has

been a good discussion. Um, and, and I trust sort of our listeners have, um,

you know, sort of gain some new which at the end of the day, you have to empower

yourself with the knowledge if we're going to be advocating against the government

and holding them to account for the programs on that.

I guess any closing thoughts with regard to any action items or sort of just

general observations with regard to the new ADEP program that you would have,

Jillian, to, you know, as we kind of wrap up this discussion, having identified a

number of concerns with the program. Yes, a couple of last parting thoughts here.

First off, we don't need ADAP. I don't understand why the government wants to choose

to keep ACE, increase the employment supports to age, and then leave age benefits as

they are, except maybe make the clawback rates more generous to incentivize people

who are working to work more. I mean, that would be a completely legitimate policy

move as well, and it would be less disruptive to people. It would also allow people

the choice of whether they wanted to access those employment supports and go into

employment or not, instead of taking that choice away from them.

So, yeah, so a lot of the stuff for ADAP, it's still in a discussion guide. It

hasn't been legislated or regulated yet. So there is still time to have your voices

heard and get out there, talk to people, talk to your MLAs, email Jason Nixon,

tell them how this is going to affect you and what you think about it. There's

still time. You know what? I really like your statement there because recognizing at

the time of this recording, we're beyond the consultation period that the government

had where they were inviting people to respond. But I would say,

you know, let's continue to share those stories. In a prior episode, we talked about

the fact that some of the examples that they used and put forward,

you know, is not our lived reality. Like, you know, maybe there's somebody like that

under Aish, but it seems Like it's not typical, right? And it doesn't reflect the,

you know, the current struggles or what's happening. So I really appreciate your

point of saying continue to continue to advocate, right?

One could get cynical and say, well, if I say anything, it's not going to make a

difference. But I think there is a point of saying, well, let's ask the tough

questions. And what I really appreciate about what you've done here is you've you've

you've taken at least a preliminary analysis of the numbers and I'm sure you'll

you'll look at it renewed when the legislation comes out so we may have to have

you back on another episode to tear apart you know the numbers looking at it from

an economic perspective to say how are we doing but but I think we There's

continued need for that advocacy. Well, I think, and we started with talking about

empowerment, and you talked a lot about choice.

The problem is it's making the assumption that the person with a disability has a

choice whether to work or not and has the ability to do that. It's making that as

an assumption where lots of them, due to the complex needs of that that they,

that they have. It's thrown out that you have a choice, but really do they? And I

think that's the part where, you know, as we talk about empowerment,

this is not empowering. And I think through the numbers and as we look,

delved a little deeper into it, it's very clear that that's not what this is all

about. So stay tuned for that, but let me end by just extending my thanks.

I guess first of all, Jillian, for actually, you know, having the interest to study

this, because I think that's an important voice in the debate that we have people

with your skill set that are just analyzing and speaking truth to the policy and to

the numbers. That's in our democracy, we need that voice, you know, versus just

completely relying on what the government is saying. We want to analyze it. That's

part of why we started this podcast is to be a place where that critical but fair

analysis is happening. So we appreciate your words and I guess also continue to

encourage that, I guess that form of advocacy is doing the number crunching and

doing the analysis and being able to say, here's how it's going to affect.

And maybe that has a chance to affect policy. If we can all get behind that and

advocate for our loved ones. So thank you for coming on the podcast. And yeah,

just a voice of encouragement to continue the good work you're doing. Well, thank

you for having me. Thank you very much. Well, Annie, there's, that was just a

really good.

creating this whole new system and effectively taking away their choice, particularly

about whether they can work or should work.

That's sort of away from them or their caregivers and is now being forced on them.

And then I really appreciated that she went through the math, obviously limited

somewhat with the fact that we don't have full information. But she's approaching it

Very analytically, I guess that resonates with me and how my brain's wired up. But

coming in and just say, well, let's focus on the facts and challenging the

government on some of their assumptions. Well, and I think, I think, but she didn't

miss the fact of how this is affecting people emotionally and,

and affecting their self -esteem with now sort of having an assumption that that

almost like their worth is is somehow tied to the fact whether they could work or

not. And if they can't, well, then they must be less than. I get this feeling. I

think that's what creates sort of the anxiety in individuals. And she didn't minimize

that. It was very much, let's look at the numbers, but let's also look at the fact

that the choice in people, that it's important that we don't make them feel less

than and that the empowerment piece, which the government makes it appear that that's

what they're doing is actually the opposite. Well, and I think, and we talked about

this, didn't talk about it specifically on the program, but I really think there's

going to be difficult time implementing their agenda, particularly in the context of

but just recognizing there's going to be real struggles. And I think when we deal

with families, we're privy to some of those stories of the real struggles already

now, right? That it's hard for people to find work and to keep it.

Some of that came out of recent town halls that we've been listening to and some

of the feedback people are providing to in some of these forums.

well, it's fine to say I'm going to go work, but I can't find a job. Or it lasts

for three weeks and then, you know, I don't have the support so I can't continue

on or I get, I get laid off or fired. I don't make it through the probationary

period. I mean, this is the real, the reality of people on Aish trying to make

ends meet. And that in the context, that it was only 16 % of the people on Aish,

that really hit me. I know I learned that when I read her article, but that's

really a significant point. That was a way low number than I thought. And I think

keep in mind that a lot of those work supports, there is work supports in place

now. And we still have the number at 16%. And that, you know, her comments that it

had been like that for the last six hadn't changed, um, though all those work

supports are there. So, um,

yeah,

what that's going to, like, like how is that going to increase, um, that suddenly

with a new program, there's going to be the ability of these people beyond that to

suddenly work at a job and make enough, uh, makes no sense to me. What I

appreciated about her approach is she's

she's starting with the facts, right? I mean, as an economist, she has to deal with

the raw data and not sort of government speak. But she's challenging the government,

I think, on a number of fronts saying, well, you say you're going to do that, but

that's not what I see in the analysis, right? So I think somebody, obviously a very

smart person who's taken a good, careful look at it. And I think that's encouraging

to all of us to say, well, we need to continue to analyze.

engagement at government atgov .ab .ab .c .a .c. So reach out where you can.

It may seem like it's not producing results, but the government is clearly going to

be monitoring the overall reaction to this. So I think it's really important that we

not stay silent in this time and hopefully gaining some knowledge with episodes like

this is going to help our listeners. So I encourage you to subscribe so you don't

miss any future episodes, wherever you listen to your podcasts, and be in touch with

us so that if there's different topics you want us to cover or you have feedback,

we'd love to hear from you. Until then, I'm Gordon. And I'm Annie. And we advocate.