The federal government also stopped making contributions to the UI fund at this time, leaving it completely supported by employers and employees. Another important development initiated through the LFDS was the establishment of a new non-governmental policy-making structure- -the Canadian Labour Force Development Board (CLFDB)--consisting of labour, business, equity and training representatives. The CLFDB will be discussed in more detail later in this article. It is important to examine the rationale underlying the privatization initiatives. The process has been an attempt by the federal government to develop a "training" or "learning culture," specifically, and to encourage industry to become more responsible for the training its workers.

It also reflects a desire to create labour market programs which are more responsive to the changes in the labour market as a result of economic restructuring. Some have argued that privatization has also been a strategy to reduce spending, because training programs provided by public institutions are more costly than those offered by the private sector, and that competition in the private sector keeps costs down.

There have been some benefits for women as a result of privatization. There has been, to a certain extent, an increase in the diversity of training programs offered, as private programs have been more responsive to the changing labour market than those run by public institutions. Privatization has also made it somewhat easier for adult educators working in the private sector (both profit and non-profit) who have a commitment to and knowledge of the needs of women. The shift of some policy-making responsibilities from government to non-government multipartite boards (i.e. the CLFDB) has also opened up opportunities for women and other equity groups to influence decision-making more directly.

On the other hand, privatization has created an intensely competitive environment for providers of training. This, together with government's desire to cut spending, has at times meant that the "bottom line" for reviewing training proposals is cost; that is, those who can do the most for the lowest cost will receive government funding. This is not a hard and fast rule, fortunately, but appears to be a dominant consideration. Proposals with limited budgets usually imply short-term programs, limited skills training and few resources. Also, an increase in the funding of job-search clubs, particularly for UI participants, has meant that fewer extensive re- training programs are being provided.

There has been concern expressed by women's organizations that short-term programs with limited skills training do no more than steer women to low-waged "job ghettos" with limited opportunity for advancement. Changes in eligibility criteria have eliminated many women from gaining access even to short-term programs. Another important consideration is the negative impact on those providing the training. In many low-budget programs, wages are low and staff must work unpaid overtime to keep the program going; there are few, if any, benefits and many programs are not long enough for the staff to collect UI upon completion. The cumulative result is unhealthy stress and burnout. The policy of privatization and reduced spending has thus helped to expand the low-waged, contract-based job ghetto of social-welfare workers.

Privatization and cost cutting measures also make it hard to build upon the knowledge base of the educators and coordinators who run training programs. Many do not stay in the field because of the difficult working conditions, and their experience and knowledge are lost. Privatization and competition for government funding has also meant isolation for many workers and has created barriers to sharing knowledge about proposal development, curriculum design, negotiating with governments, assisting learners and crisis management. Concerns have also been raised about the crucial process of accountability, evaluation, and monitoring of quality. Other than determining the percentage of participants who found paid work following a training program, there is little effort made to evaluate program quality.