The LINC policy encourages competition and cut-rate programs. Contracts may go to whoever can train the most students at the lowest price. LINC/LMLT program funding and delivery is not necessarily channeled toward public education, nor the broader public sector including not-for-profit community-based, training deliverers. This creates competition and underbidding, providing fewer and fewer training dollars per participant, and a "race to the bottom" which jeopardizes the quality of language and other instruction received by participants, threatens job security of instructors, and undermines the foundation of the existing educational and training structure.

In addition, LINC funding does not cover the real costs of training. The maximum amount allowed for LINC training works out to $6.00 per student per day to cover client costs, staff, counselors, overhead, equipment and supplies; in short, to deliver the training that the colleges once provided at a cost of $29.00 per student per day. There is no money for teacher professional development or upgrading. There are no professional guidelines for teachers and, until recently (in Ontario) no uniform curriculum. And, since every contract is different, the funding is totally inconsistent.

Another weakness of the new language training policy is that it depends on a fragmented delivery system. The integrated approach of pedagogically-sound ESL ~training, which is lined up at all levels with skill and job search training, enhances sustainable attachment to the labour market. However, the LINC language delivery incorporates few of these practices. It has no job-related component, no language training component related to labour market participation, and no mechanism connecting language training to skills training. In fact, according to Joan Baril, an ESL instructor at Confederation College and the author of a Canada-wide study on LINC, the program provides, at best, "basic language learning." "When a person graduates from LINC," says Baril, "they have not learned the language by any means."

LINC/LMLT ignores the knowledge and expertise which has informed all ESL programming in the education and training sectors. Consultations in developing the program dealt only with implementation issues rather than inviting the expertise and cooperation of those experienced in the delivery of language training. Neither those groups who are affected by the policy changes nor those who deliver language training were asked for their input:

LINC does provide some funding, for "child minding" and this was initially seen as a progressive part of the policy. However, the lack of consistent information combined with the scarcity of funds has created a patchwork system, with some excellent centres and many that are inadequate. Some programs have hired child workers with little or no specialized training in caring for the children of immigrants. There is also no requirement that workers have Early Childhood Education certification, and no attempt is made to provide special supports or interventions appropriate to children of newcomers which could be cost-saving in the long run.

Although in theory LINC is to meant to lead learners to further training through LMLT, there is a gap between the end of LINC and the lowest level of LMLT. And, to qualify for LMLT, a learner must have a skill that is needed in the community. This becomes a problem for women who are often clustered in a small number of low-paying, low-end jobs not defined as desirable occupations for further upgrading. Entry and exit level criteria for LINC are internally inconsistent. Learners are not able to move from one LINC level to another, nor from LINC to LMLT. In addition, LMLT has no funding for subsidies, allowances or wages, which are often what make it possible for women to participate in training programs. Access to LINC/LMLT classes is often impossible for women on low incomes, social assistance or in need of quality childcare.