012. Reimagining Disability Supports in Alberta: What Does Real Reform Look Like?

Episode Summary:

In this solo episode, Gordon VanderLeek steps back from reacting to policy changes and instead asks a bigger question:

If we could redesign Alberta’s disability support system from scratch, what would real reform look like?

With the introduction of the Alberta Disability Assistance Program (ADAP), ongoing concerns about AISH, and limited consultation with the disability community, this episode explores what meaningful change could be, not just administrative adjustments, but structural reform grounded in dignity, stability, and inclusion.

Why this matters:

Disability supports affect:

• Over 79,000 Albertans currently on AISH
• Countless caregivers and families
• Support workers and community agencies
• Employers seeking inclusive workplaces
• The long-term dignity and economic stability of disabled Albertans

Reform is not about political positioning, it’s about ensuring people can live with dignity, security, and opportunity.

Key Takeaways:

• AISH currently provides subsistence-level support that does not keep pace with real cost-of-living increases.
• Indexing benefits to inflation should be automatic and legislated, not discretionary.
• The $100,000 asset limit has never been adjusted and no longer reflects economic reality.
• Clawbacks, especially of the $200 Canada Disability Benefit, undermine financial stability.
• Families are forced into roles as case managers navigating fragmented systems.
• Disability support workers are underpaid, leading to burnout and workforce instability.
• Employment should increase quality of life, not create fear of losing benefits.
• Alberta lacks accessibility legislation, unlike several other provinces.
• Real reform must involve co-design with the disability community: Nothing about us without us.

Memorable lines:

“Can we get beyond a system of barely getting by?”

“Work should increase quality of life. It shouldn’t threaten survival.”

“As a society, we’re judged by how fully we include and support people.”

Resources & Links:

Disability Advocates Website:
 https://www.disabilityadvocates.ca

AISH Program Information:
 https://www.alberta.ca/aish

Alberta Disability Assistance Program (ADAP) Overview:
 https://www.alberta.ca

Persons with Developmental Disabilities (PDD):
https://www.alberta.ca/persons-with-developmental-disabilities-pdd

FSCD (Family Support for Children with Disabilities):
 https://www.alberta.ca/fscd

Transcript

Welcome to the We Advocate podcast. My name is Gordon Van der Leak and I'm your

solo host today. Normally my host and partner in the disability space as part of

our law firm is Annie Vanderleek, my wife, but she's unable to be here for this

recording. So buying solo today, but wanted to cover a topic that's come up in our

conversations. So this was kind of designed with some of Annie's input. But I wanted

to get this recording out and not delay to a point where her schedule allowed her

to be part of the recording. So first of all, thank you for those that have been

faithfully listening. It's interesting in the last couple of weeks. There's a number

of people that have emailed and some conversations that I've had where people are

encouraging about the content we're putting out and some of the advocacy that this

represents. And we're very grateful for that feedback. That is very heartwarming.

And so thank you for that. And certainly, if there's any specific responses to this

episode or to the podcast in general. Please subscribe, share episodes with your

friends. The episodes are available wherever you listen to your podcasts in the

various, whether it's Apple Podcasts or the other programs that allow you to listen

to the podcast, as well as episodes are posted on the Disability Advocates website,

which is Disability Advocates .ca. So with that, let's get in today's topic,

which is reimagining disability supports in Alberta? What does real reform look like?

Now, it's interesting when we talk about all the issues and we get the feedback

from our listeners about some of the struggles that they have and certainly noting

all the discontent, the anxiety and frustration associated with the changes in the H

program and the introduction of the new Alberta Disability Assistance Program or ADAP

has sparked ongoing conversations about disability supports highlighted by the fact

that the government appears not to be consulting, not talking, and not particularly

listening to the disability community, engaging in a conversation of what disability

supports could be like. So I thought in this episode we'd highlight a few areas

that if we could wave a magic wand, this is, these are the sorts of reforms that

I think are worthy of a conversation or worthy of a government to consider, to

support disabled Albertans and also the caregivers and family members that are daily

trying to meet the needs of these people and provide them a good quality of life

and dignity. And really, with a view of saying, can we get beyond a system of

barely getting by or a system that's pejorative or biased or unwieldly and unduly

complicated. So what could Alberta's disability supports look like if the government

held a town hall where they listened as opposed to talked? They organized the

symposium to say, let's bring everybody together in a conference hall and listen to

each other and identify issues and come up with solutions. How could we make the

system better? So I'm going to talk a little bit about my thoughts with regard to

the current landscape, and then we'll get into some of the areas of reform. The

area's focus on certainly the age program, assured income for the severely handicap,

PDD, persons with developmental disabilities, looking at employment supports and

accessibility systems within Alberta. So what's the current landscape?

Where are we now? So first, with the income supports, that's the age program. If

you have a permanent decision,

subject to the ability to apply to get back to the age program. I should note, and

we talked about it in a prior session, that there are transitional systems or

provisions in place that people can maintain benefits beyond the implementation of the

program. But we're also in a situation where the government, or the latest that I've

read from Minister Nixon, with regard to the program was that, you know,

I think the first week in January when he was part of a Q &A that was published

that was saying in the next couple of months we're going to roll out the

regulations. As of the time of this recording, we don't have those regulations yet,

but I would assume they're going to be forthcoming fairly soon. So Aish gives that

flat monthly benefit. There's also an asset limit. You can't own too much or beyond

the stated amount of $100 ,000 to be eligible for the program. The current age

program claws back for the Canada Disability Benefit. That's $200 that the federal

government is allocating for disabled Canadians. So people with a long -term disability

can apply to that program. And in fact, AIS is mandating that they do that. And

then they're clawing back that $200. So effectively, you see on the stub,

the pay stubs, if you will, the benefits that come out monthly for an age recipient

would be the 1740, assuming that they're getting the $200 from the Canada disability

benefit. And of course, there's all the complexity that we're anticipating with the

new ADAP program and having to reapply and reestablish or tell the story yet again

that somebody is permanently disabled, and that's going to be subject to a review

panel, medical professionals, reviewing information afresh. So a whole administrative

burden associated with that new program that is imposed on everybody who wishes to

get back on or be qualified under the age program. Secondly, there's some service

-based supports. This would be PDD or FS as well as FSCD,

and this is funding to allow the support of other workers for respite. The problem

here, if we're identifying the current landscape, I've heard a number of these

conversations in the last couple of weeks, is the long wait list. People got

approved. One person I spoke to said, yeah, I was approved two years ago. I still

don't, I still don't have any funding to go out and get assistance to hire workers

to support their disabled child. And if they have the funding, there's a issue of

workforce shortages. We hear all the time that it's so difficult to find people who

are qualified and a good match to the particular disability of their loved one.

That for a lot of people they do this work, it's difficult work. And the funding,

the pay funding is not great. So a lot of people leave for other employment because

they are needing to support themselves. We've heard of inconsistent service

coordination and certainly some burnout in the frontline staff, that there's just an

overwhelm, that's insufficient resources to be able to address the issues that are

there. Another area would be the employment barriers, sort of fears of losing

benefits, limited supported employment if they are trying to work. Now acknowledging,

I think the new ADAP program is promising some wraparound supports. We'll have to

see what that looks like. But I think it's fair to say that a lot of the burden

of providing supports rests with family or other people or an employer who's prepared

to make those accommodations or will provide those supports to the person who's

employed. And certainly there's a lack of employer incentives and general education on

there, which I think is a bit of a foundation for a lot of cynicism in the part

of the disability community that the promise of the various supports is actually

going to work. Because we're not seeing it now. There's a lot of, there are

examples where things do work, for sure. We do hear those stories, but more and

more, and certainly if I look back over the last couple of years, we hear regular

stories of difficulties in maintaining employment or the understandings required to

accommodate a person with a long -term disability into an employment workforce.

And then finally, I guess there's the area of accessibility. I'll just tease a

little bit at this point is that we are in our next episode are going to have a

recording with that focuses on the issue of accessibility and the fact that we don't

have legislation in Alberta. There's some movement to introduce legislation in that

regard and to highlight that issue. So we're going to have some guests that are

going to be talking about that issue.

So if we're redesigning the system from scratch, what would we change? What are the,

what would we try to achieve if we had a whiteboard and say, what would it look

like and how could it be managed? It's interesting to note, I was reading again

that the Q &A with Mr. Nixon, where he was interviewed about all these changes with

the ADAP and he's highlighting going, hey, we have the gold standard, we have the

best in Canada, and we want to make it even better and there's not going to be

any budget cuts. I think that's a challenge, I could challenge that conclusion

because I think there are lots of improvements, and I don't think we are the best

in Canada, particularly if you take into account some of the clawback of the CDB

and that it's what you obtain under Aish is below poverty standards,

particularly highlighting a period of, we're in periods of inflation and high costs

of living for people with long -term disabilities. So I think it's fair to conclude

that it's a subsistence level of support. It doesn't achieve appropriate standards if

we're looking at poverty lines. The point being is that most of the people on

disability supports are living below the poverty line. And what can we do to make

that better? And acknowledging in that report, so I'm going off, I assume the number

is accurate because it's quoted by Minister Nixon is that there's over $3 billion

being invested into disability supports, including Aish and PDD and other programs

that are there. I think it would be a really interesting conversation to say, well,

let's look at the people who are disabled in Alberta. What does that look like? We

know there's over 79 ,000 people on Aish, but there could be lots of people with

long -term disabilities that don't qualify for A. They have too many assets or they

have too much income that makes them ineligible, but they still need supports and

they still struggle. So how could we take that these billions of dollars that are

being invested into the system? And how can we have that make a greater impact for

Albertans? So reform number one that I wanted to talk about for a few minutes was

income security. One of the things that I would propose first is to index age to

inflation. Now, what's interesting about that article with Minister Nixon is he

actually said, well, it's the law that it is indexed to inflation, which is actually

not a true statement. What it says, there used to be a provision in the act about

indexation for inflation, and it was tied to kind of an Alberta government inflation

indicator, not the consumer price index, but there's a standard for Alberta, and Aish

was earmarked as being adjusted on an annual basis on January 1st of every year by

that standard. They didn't follow that standard, and in fact, the proposals are going

to adjust it, but it's at discretion. So as it stands right now, it'll be

determined by regulation. And regulation can be changed or modified or canceled

without a debate of the legislature. So it's not fair to say that it's law because

it isn't. There's no protection in Bill 12 that created the ADAP system for the

indexation to inflation. It should happen automatically. I think everybody acknowledged

that if you give a level of support, it shouldn't just be based every so many

years at the discretion of the government, but why not have it go automatically?

Because costs go up automatically with inflation, particularly in these times.

So I would say remove political discretion. I would put it right in the legislation,

as Minister Nixon suggests, to make it the law and take it out of the whims of

the politicians as to how much it should go up, at least go back to the Alberta

inflation indicator, as opposed to just coming up with a number. Right now, from

what I read, it's less than the actual amount of inflation. So there is some

erosion of that borrowing, of the buying power, if you will, or the ability for

people on disabilities to keep pace with the cost of goods, whether, you know, for

food, for rent, all the items to provide quality of life and safety and security

are being eroded on an annual basis without any protection. Number two,

I would raise the core benefit to reflect the real cost of living. I think the

government's position is that we're the gold standard or we're so attractive that

other people are moving here based on other programs. I think what I've read from

people advocating in this space is to say, that's not, that shouldn't be the

standard. Now, I don't know that there's any real data that people are actually

moving here for that, but let's say that's a legitimate concern. Well, you can

adjust residency requirements for that. But for those that are here and are

struggling to make ends meet, provide a proper assessment of the costs and come up

with appropriate core benefits to reflect the cost of living. Even consider maybe

regional adjustments. If you're living in Sylvan Lake,

or Lethbridge, that's going to be different than Calgary or Edmonton. Costs are very

different. Maybe in some cases being in rural areas, transportation costs are greater

that have to be accommodated. So what does that look like? Can we come up with a

uniform standard for Alberta or should we look at different regions? Would that

provide an appropriate amount, if that can be administered,

I think a good conversation on that would be appropriate. Number three, I would

modernize asset and earnings exemption. It's interesting that the $100 ,000 asset test

has been in place since it was introduced. And this is quite a number of years

ago. I'm not going to quote the year because I can't remember it offhand, but it

was shortly after the H program was introduced, they put in the asset exemption.

And it has not never been adjusted. So with that being said, should that receive

some manual adjustments or periodic review, $100 ,000 doesn't go as long as what it

used to in terms of eligibility for the program. I would under that also allow

meaningful part -time earnings without clawbacks. I think under the new program,

the only exempt amount is $3 .50, and we don't know what the exemption amounts are

beyond that. But why not encourage people who probably can only manage part -time

work? It's a rare person who has a long -term disability who's able to do full -time

employment in my experience. It's usually part -time employment, but why not let them

keep more of their paycheck? What is the problem with them earning too much and

seeing that the age program is providing that basic level of support, maybe simplify

the program by just giving a very generous amount and encouraging people to work. We

know there's a lot of value in working. It's good for people to work. You know,

they're in community. They are socializing. They're feeling they're contributing and

there's improvements to self -worth, to their assessment of their self -worth. If

they're doing something and they're helping produce a product, they're providing a

service, they're, they're part of a team and part of that regular routine.

So let's encourage that and not worry, you know, less clawbacks and allowing them to

keep more money. I would create gradual reduction models rather than sharper cutoffs.

So if you're, if you're going to eventually claw back the the entire benefit, have

it more generous. Again, we'll have to stay tuned to see what the new ones are,

but I think that would be an appropriate reform. And I would decouple health

benefits from income thresholds. Again, we have to see the regulations and the

assurance to see whether the government is going to uphold their assurances that they

will provide the health benefits. But we hear more certainly regularly from people

that getting those health benefits is important. They're not always going to qualify

through a group plan, especially if it's part -time. And certainly you want to

discourage or rather encourage people to work without fear of losing that medical

coverage. Again, the government appears to have listened on that, and at least their

public documents have stated that that's going to be one of the things they will

introduce. I think that's an important reform, providing that basic medical coverage.

If we're looking at kind of reform pillar number two, I'm titling this one a shift

from gatekeeping to navigation. The problem we see is the complexity of some of the

paperwork, and there's all the various programs, and getting through the application

process and maintaining all the paperwork you have to do through the process does

create a significant burden for families and caregivers. There's always reassessments,

and we're going through that now, repeated eligibility reassessments, particularly for

those that have permanent disabilities. Why is that needed? Why is it more sense of

gatekeeping, that we're trying to keep people out, and that's really the goal, that

the government hires more auditors and people on the financial side to keep track of

it versus turning them into advocates or people to help navigate. It really turns

families into becoming case managers, trying to navigate all the different programs.

A solution, I think that might make sense is like a single entry access model. You

have one coordinated intake portal for disability supports, and that opens the door

to all various programs, rather than having separate eligibility criteria. If you look

at ACH, they have a model. You look at PDD, they have a different criteria. It's

actually based on IQ, which I know other reforms in the system have suggested that

we need to do something different, that that's not the right criteria. But just

having kind of that single eligibility process to access the various programs that

the government in Alberta is going to provide would create a simplicity, I think for

the four families. And then having the government workers, point number two would be

turning them into navigators. I think there's a similar arrangement in the healthcare

system where there are patient navigators that will help them get access to various

programs. You know, by analogy, I remember a friend and colleague of mine worked for

a bank. And he always stated his job was to talk to the clients of the bank and

help them navigate the complexity of the banking system. You think even like any of

the big banks, they got all different departments, huge entities, lots of employees,

and it's not always easy to make your way through that. He took it as part of his

job working for the bank when he did to help clients navigate it. I know he had a

lot of success and a lot of people appreciated going, can you just tell me where

to go and what to do? Because it's not easy. What if we had people like that?

Like they turn the H workers into navigators and saying, let me help you through

the system. It looks like you're eligible for stuff. Let me help you get qualified

for that. As opposed to saying, well, we're trying to kick you off or they become

gatekeepers. I think that would be a great improvement in the system. Number three,

I would say presumptive eligibility for lifelong conditions. If the eligibility is

there for life, avoid the need for repetitive medical documentation.

For some disabilities, this stuff is not going to go away. And forcing the families

to redo these assessments is both costly and burdensome. It takes away from their

care and is a burden for families. I think we can look at digital modernization as

point number four in terms of tracking application, specific timelines, and some

accountability within the government. I know in our interactions with other governments

that there's been a movement in this area. What about what the disability supports?

If you're looking at the PG program, it takes years and years to process those. How

is that even possible? How is that happening? And how can that be managed? Families

have no control about those timelines. Is it a staffing problem? Is it a budgeting

problem? What are those systems like? Typically when you're looking at government

supports, those systems may be antiquated. I suspect they can be improved and

modernized. All right, let's look. I guess at reform pillar number three, workforce

and service capacity. I know I've talked to some people working at different

agencies, and they are find people and to and to pay them appropriately with what

is allocated at an hourly rate. I think a few years ago there was some movement to

be able to try to bring it up. It somehow came up in the news and there was some

advocacy and some slight changes in the programs. But I think it's an ongoing

problem that disability support workers are underpaid. I think that type of work is

so important. If these people can be supported, that's going to save money in other

areas. And it can be a key component to providing the security for somebody who's

unable to look after themselves. There's a great responsibility. The jobs are hard.

I think what I hear consistently is that the wages are not appropriate for the

skill required and or the demands of the job. As a result, there's high turnover.

So better pay on that would provide some stability. And also, I've heard there's

inconsistent training. So providing more supports, there's, there's a complexity with

some of these, some individuals with disabilities have complex needs and there needs

to be appropriate training. I think those would be the current challenges. So if we

had like a provincial wage grid for support workers, that again was, was adjusted on

a regular basis to to keep pace with market conditions and allow them to earn

enough money to support themselves rather than having to look elsewhere for that

work. Maybe retention bonuses or incentives if it's in rural environments for

transportation costs, for example, bringing people back and forth to different medical

appointments and for services. Maybe some standardized training certification process.

And also some multi -year funding agreements for service agencies.

vulnerable in our society. I think if we have stability in the workforce, that'll

translate into stability in people's lives. So I think some reform in that area

would be really important. I would say reform pillar number four, employment without

penalty. Work should increase quality of life. It shouldn't threaten survival. It

shouldn't be that when you work, you're worse off. As I said earlier, work can be

so meaningful. And I hear stories over and again from clients and other people who

speak about the employment opportunities their child has and the importance that it

places. The important contribution they can make, not to single anyone out,

but I know, I guess I'm based on our own experience, Annie and I were at a

function for inclusion in Alberta here in Calgary. And they're telling stories of how

people are providing meaningful work and some of the stories of employers who are

saying we were skeptical at first, but then we brought people with intellectual

disabilities into the program. And the joy and the benefit that contributed to their

workforce was palpable and significant. There was real stories of the important work

that was going on. I know when I was listening to those stories, I was moved and

say, we need to do more of that. we need to highlight those programs and support

the agencies that make those things happen. It makes such a huge difference to the

parents. There were stories, again, in that breakfast meeting, and I'm sure it's

replicated time and time again. Of the parents saying once their child got

employment, there's that element of, okay, they're part of a community, they're being

supported, they're going to be okay, they're thriving, They're finding meaning, they're

finding joy versus they're just sitting at home. Maybe they're volunteering or going

to different places in the city. But being part of that work environment is bringing

so much stability and joy into their life. That really goes to providing that safe

and secure future. And it makes a huge difference to the outlook for the future

that that parent would have. So providing those employment opportunities. If there's,

if there's any possibilities of eliminating benefits, providing more assurances of

that, creating employer tax incentives for inclusive hiring, providing supported

employment expansion. Maybe there's an opportunity to create some micro enterprise

funding. Can we create a model where the government can use the taxation system to

encourage this type of activity? If they have benefits is their portability of those

benefits between and how does that tie in with the government benefits? So I think

just improving employment opportunities can make a significant difference would be part

of those disability supports that would be important. I guess reform number five

would be accessibility. We're going to have the next podcast episode focus in on

this and we'll get into more details. I just want to highlight it as an area

because for many, having the opportunity of that mobility is huge. I know with if

when people access the handibus system, I've heard stories from clients that just the

ability of a handy bus to come to the house, pick somebody up, bring them to their

programs. Can we do that better? Having some mobility engaging in in normal day -to

-day activities. If you're in a chair or you have limited mobility, providing supports

of that can be huge in terms of their quality of life. What does that mean for

buildings? What does that mean for systems like the handy bus? And when we're

designing new buildings, what does accessibility mean? So we can certainly dive into

that topic further. So I'm just going to identify it as that being in place and I

guess teasing the fact that there is the hope to introduce proposed legislation in

Alberta, so we have a legislative framework to assure, to address accessibility issues

and what does that mean? And hopefully also in the next episode have some people

who can talk about the importance of that in their lives. So I guess this is point

number six in my outline. And it's not about the specific programs, but more about

the methodology. Let's co -design with the disability community. And I don't know who

authored this comment, but I've heard it several times and more recently even this

past week. Nothing about us without us. So if the government is designing a program,

which they're currently doing, but without meaningful consultation, if you're going to

design it, talk to the disability community. Maybe we have a disability advisory

council that has some real authority. We have a disability Advocate? Is the person

really able to advocate? Is there that independence or are they dependent on

government funding and therefore not able to really call the government to account?

Almost somebody like with the status almost of an auditor general that they're not

subject to political whim. We have some entities within the government that are

auditing the government. How are we doing and can call the government to account

with real authority to protect Albertans who have long -term disabilities. Maybe we

need mandatory public reporting on outcomes. If we say we're going to do things, do

we have groups that are analyzing it? I think as a result of the changes with the

new ADAP program, there's different organizations that are doing research and starting

that public policy debate, but why can't we have systems that look at that

regularly. We do that with various pieces of legislation saying every so often we

have to have a review of that. And what about being transparent with the data? Just

being able to find the information with regard to all these programs is difficult.

In fact, if for me going to find the number of people on Aish, I had to go to a

government of Canada website. Why is the government not being more transparent about

these programs? I think if we need to see the hard numbers, then we can start

having a dialogue about the best way to manage that. I think that's important to

have those numbers on the table if we're going to have a proper public policy

debate. And maybe we need annual stakeholder policy roundtables. I've heard time and

time again through the ADAP program is not only agencies are getting their funding

cut. They have, there's no system to involve them. They're the ones doing the work.

They're on the ground level trying to make this happen, they're implementing the

supports for these programs. There should be a mechanism whereby these people have an

opportunity to give their feedback, and the government should be listening to that.

It's beyond my level of expertise to know exactly how that should be structured, but

just an embedded opportunity to talk to stakeholders, I think is so critical, because

they're the ones that see what's going on. They will know the problems with regard

to that. With all this being said, let's just wrap up. Some of the questions I was

posing to myself might be if we could change one thing tomorrow, what would it be?

And I think for that with the new ADAP program, I would say delay the

implementation and have a symposium, have a meeting where we're bringing the

disability community together and talking and listening to each other. I think more

information is needed about the program. If there are problems with the program that

the government is trying to solve, And they're being vague on that, quite frankly.

And if one of those is cost, well, let's have a meaningful conversation about that.

We should be able to do that. It's important to have a program that can be funded

into the future. We have had those conversations, are having those conversations in

the healthcare field, about needing to rationalize and having the best possible

system. So it's there and sustainable on a long -term basis. I think those are

appropriate conversations to have. But what I would do is if I could wave my magic

wand, I would say delay ADAP because I think it's not a good program. It's costly.

And I think there's a better way to achieve the same results and better support.

I think in terms of the most overlooked issue, if I had to pick one, I think I'm

going to peg that as the accessibility issue. I think that's just one that has not

had a lot of attention. I'm really encouraged by the fact that Marie Renault, the

NDP critic, is proposing to put a private member's bill forward. So I think that's

going to really shed the light on that issue. And I'm really looking forward to our

next podcast episode where we're going to get into more details on that. The last

question I was asking myself was, what gives me hope? Trying to end on a positive

note. And what's interesting about this is that I see that there's more communication

about issues relevant to the disability community. So while there's lots of negative,

and I think that messaging of somehow the system is broken or being abused or is

flawed, with all that being said, if I compare over the last 10 years, I'm seeing

more and more support. People are rallying to say, hey, not fair, and we need to

have discussions. There's people are writing letters to their MLA or engaging in the

political process. So as much as it's in the context of the ADAP program,

which I think is a not good program and it's not good for the disability community,

is rallying support and hopefully rallying attention. And I hope that also translates

into more communication to the broader community because I think there's sort of a

lack of awareness of the problems that even exist. The general public would not even

be aware of any of these things. It's simply not on their radar. So that gives me

some hope that we're moving towards a time where there's increased attention to these

important issues. So I think we need to continue to discuss with the MLAs, you

know, continue to engage in consultations, review the material, support disability -led

organizations, right? Look up those organizations that are working hard in this area

trying to affect public policy and support them, financially support them,

but volunteer your time and get educated and then talk to your neighbors, talk to

other people about what's going on, and share your lived experiences. It's interesting

that people have been reaching out to us to say, here's been my story. So we're

listening to those. I think more of those need to be shared and hopefully we can

do that on this podcast going So I think that all is very positive and encouraging

for us to continue to engage in. And really, you just want to end with the thought

that really as a society, we're kind of judged about how fully we include people

and how we support them. And I hope this ongoing debate allows us to focus on that

important issue and bring awareness to reforms. And if the government were to listen.

I would start with some of the things we've talked about, but also encourage you to

say, hey, write to us. If you go, there's another area that needs attention that

should be managed. And, you know, let's get those items on the table. Let's share

our concerns. But I think if we can certainly reform some of these systems, make

them better, that's going to lead us to having even better supports with the

resources that we do have and that we put into the community. Thank you for

listening on this. And as I said from the outset, if you found this to be useful,

please share it, subscribe, leave a comment. And we thank you for the time you've

taken to listen.