The question didn't follow directly from the comments.
One of the problems with studying welfare is that it varies so much from province to province. I'm not an expert on Quebec, but I do know that the attitudes in Quebec, in general, are much more progressive than they are in the rest of the country in terms of most social problems.
I have a PhD student now who is looking at the problems of precarious work in northern, rural, isolated areas. She's looking mainly at northern Ontario and northern British Colombia, and she's finding that most social policies we develop are based on a city-centred mentality. The notion on welfare, for example, of having to do a job search, as required to look for jobs, works fine if you live in the city and have a bus pass, and you can go around from door to door. But if you live in a small town, if you live in a rural or an isolated area where there may only be one employer, and if that employer shuts down, the concept of a job search really has no meaning.
She hasn't got her conclusions yet, but clearly a lot of the policies, in general, have an urban bias to them. And when we apply them to rural and isolated areas they just don't fit; they don't work.
It appears from meeting with many of the welfare administrators who work in the northern parts of Ontario that the way they deal with these problems is they just ignore the rules that come from Toronto. On issues like job searches, they understand that this is meaningless. It's never written down, and I can't prove this, but what they are telling my student is that everybody just ignores it because it's a waste of time and it's demeaning.
Even training opportunities under EI are much more problematic in isolated areas because a person may have to drive four or five hours to get to a training site. So I'm not convinced that widespread training is going to be viable in really isolated areas.
I'm not sure what the answer is.