From the Editor: Forcing AISH recipients onto ADAP isn’t incentive to work, it’s coercion
By Scott Schmidt on March 14, 2026.
Debate has ramped up again regarding the future of Alberta’s disability supports framework, with myriad numbers and accusations bandied about. From the Opposition NDP to disability advocates, the provincial government has been under fire since announcing that ADAP (Alberta Disability Assistance Program) would begin running alongside Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped, or AISH. They say the concept of shifting nearly 80,000 people to a program that requires disabled people to find a job, or prove that they can’t work, is detrimental and unnecessary. In turn, the UCP government says the former NDP government “punished people for wanting to work” through AISH, and that ADAP allows the “dignity of being part of the workforce” while still receiving support. The best of both worlds. One side says ADAP provides a dignified life, the other suggests it will take that away. So, who’s right? If you tried to use the figures to decide which side of the debate you land on, it could get pretty confusing. ADAP tops out at less, while AISH offers a lower potential earnings maximum. AISH *currently has a higher monthly income threshold, but ADAP claws benefits back at a slower rate once it’s reached. However, when it’s not talking numbers, the government has consistently said AISH does not “incentivize” finding work, while ADAP will reward it. It has repeatedly suggested Alberta’s disabled community wants to work but that it’s just too restrictive under AISH, and creating this new program is freeing them of those shackles. And this is where you don’t need to understand the numbers to see where the government’s own words kind of topple the whole concept. If the goal is to incentivize those in the disabled community who would work if they could, if you’re just trying to create a program where people can benefit by finding as much work as they’re able – if they’re able – then why on earth would you need to make it mandatory? Why, if this is in any way about the desire of the person living with their disability, would you suggest a program that already allows them to work, as AISH does, is inferior to a program that forces them to? In fact, and apologies for reverting to the numbers, AISH left untouched allows $1,072 in monthly earnings before benefits begin to be clawed back. *Once ADAP kicks in this July, the AISH monthly threshold drops to $350, while ADAP’s will be $700. Basically, what that says is, if you want to stay on AISH you are only doing so if you can’t work at all, and, more importantly, if you say you can’t work at all, you better prove it. How is forcing 80,000 Albertans to either get a job, or prove they can’t even lift a finger, a beneficial incentive, and not outright coercion? If you wanted to make this great program where people can go get that job they want while still getting supports, then you could just do that and make it opt-in. It’s pretty simple actually. You make the great program for those who want to work more, and you can still lower the income threshold for the old one, but you don’t force anyone to do it. If they work, then they are truly incentivized to move to ADAP because that’s where you can make the most money without losing support. There are already thousands of people on AISH who work and would gladly choose a way to maximize both their income and their supports. And the ones who aren’t working would simply stay where they are. That’s what you might do if you cared about dignity and incentive. The way the province is doing it, on the other hand, says nothing more than, “A significant number of you are just lazy, and we’re going to figure out who’s who.” This is typical ‘margins are the norm’ behaviour, and it’s trucked out any time any kind of welfare service is discussed. They see the statistical outlier of abuse that comes with any public program, and they equate that to the entire lot. And for that reason (it can’t be money savings since they don’t even know how much that might be yet) they’re going to send tens of thousands of disabled Albertans into a workforce that Premier Danielle Smith says immigrants have, apparently, already oversaturated. The entire debate is back in headlines this week because Social Services Minister Jason Nixon made a quiet announcement on Monday saying they’ve listened to feedback from Albertans and made adjustments. Aside from doubling the initial monthly income threshold to a whopping $700 under ADAP before clawbacks begin (a ‘concession’ they no doubt knew they would make from the get-go) they have decided to exempt a certain number of AISH recipients from the automatic transition to ADAP. So now (thankfully?) people like those with an extreme-enough disability to already be eligible for Persons with Developmental Disabilities services, or someone with a terminal illness or in palliative care, will no longer have to prove they can’t work. This is what they needed the public to tell them? That someone with cerebral palsy living in an electric wheelchair and another who has ALS probably can’t work? How is this entire process anything other than cruelty under the guise of a benefit that AISH recipients already had? How is this anything other than a provincial government punching down? And if it isn’t cruelty, if it isn’t just punching down, wouldn’t there be at least someone from the disabled community willing to stand beside the government to say so? Scott Schmidt is editor of the Medicine Hat News. He can be reached at sschmidt@medicinehatnews.com 28-27
The photo of maga trump on stage mocking the disabled woman should be the photo for this attack on disabled Albertans by the maple maga UCP.
The Alberta I have known for many decades has been lost to a extreme and deviant fringe. This isn’t a conservative government, it is far more harmful than anything in Alberta since the Social Credit extremists.
Albertans best stand up and fight for their democracy or else we will suffer an economic and social collapse from maga extremism just like the USA.
That is true.
This is exactly what the UCP and Danielle Smith have in mind for those on AISH. It’s reprehensible.
https://x.com/TheBreakdownAB/status/2030773909579325671?s=20
In my view, the UCP places its greatest emphasis on the oil sector and on economic growth that primarily benefits those already doing well. That philosophy resonates with many Albertans who see resource development and market freedom as the path to prosperity. There is nothing inherently wrong with believing that, but problems arise when that focus leaves vulnerable people behind.
Most Albertans would never consciously support harming a person in a wheelchair, or abandoning someone who cannot work because of illness or disability. Yet policies that reduce supports for disabled individuals require a moral justification. Too often, that justification comes in the form of stigma, portraying disabled people as capable but unwilling, as dependent rather than deserving, as potential cheats rather than citizens facing hardship through no fault of their own.
This is precisely the stigma that led to the creation of AISH under Peter Lougheed and the Progressive Conservative government of the time. Lougheed’s conservatives understood something fundamental, a carrot and a stick cannot make a person stand up out of a wheelchair. AISH was created to remove welfare stigma and to recognize that disability is not a moral failing, but a condition of life that deserves dignity and stability.
Today, however, there is a growing narrative that those receiving AISH should be viewed with suspicion, that they should be working if they truly wanted to, that supports create dependency, and that current benefits are already generous. Statements from figures such as Jason Nixon, suggesting that Alberta provides the most generous benefits, reinforce the idea that those living in poverty should somehow feel fortunate. For many disabled individuals struggling to meet basic needs, this disconnect feels particularly stark.
There is also a contradiction that many disabled Albertans find troubling. On one hand, the government speaks about encouraging employment and independence. On the other hand, there has been resistance to stronger accessibility measures and structural supports that would actually make employment possible. Encouraging work without addressing barriers risks sounding less like empowerment and more like blame.
Underlying much of this, I believe, is a broader problem in modern politics, identity fusion. People increasingly see political parties not simply as organizations they support, but as extensions of themselves. When a party is criticized, supporters often feel personally attacked. This makes thoughtful debate difficult, because defending the party becomes intertwined with defending one’s own identity.
When this happens, individuals may unintentionally surrender some of their independence of thought. Loyalty can replace reflection. Team identity can outweigh compassion. Over time, people risk giving up not only the flexibility of their vote, but also the empathy that allows a society to care for those who cannot care for themselves.
A healthy political culture allows people to support a party while still questioning it. It allows compassion to coexist with ideology. And most importantly, it remembers that dignity for the vulnerable is not a partisan value, but a human one.