Q.  I can’t keep track any more.  What’s this big new skills initiative that got some press a couple of weeks ago?

A. The 2021 Budget contained a commitment to fund “an initiative to scale-up proven industry-led, third-party delivered approaches to upskill and redeploy workers to meet the needs of growing industries”.   Industry, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) had a competition to figure out who will deliver it, much like they had a competition to figure out how to deliver the Future Skills Council. They just announced the winner, which was a company called Palette.  Hence the momentary news flare-up.

Q.  If it’s about skills, why is ISED running it?  I thought Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) was the department in charge of skills.

A.  Oh, sweet summer child.

Q.  What?

A.  ESDC oversees things like basic skills.  Its mission is to make sure people don’t get left behind.  ISED is in charge of anything gee-whizzy, which includes anything involving skills which could be described as “high tech”.  One is like Kraft Dinner, the other more of a fine risotto.  It’s an irritating double-act that goes back over twenty years to when Kevin Lynch was Deputy Minister at Industry Canada. 

Q.  OK.  And what is this Palette outfit, exactly?

A. Well, that’s an interesting question.  Palette was started in 2017 by Arvind Gupta (ex-MITACS CEO, ex-UBC President) as kind of side-project.  Briefly, the idea was “Boot Camp for everything!” – that it was possible to take the principles of boot camps (which were kind of hot in tech circles in the mid-to-late ‘10s) and apply them to lots of different fields of study so as to get people into “hot” fields, quickly.  It’s sort of the same idea as all those short courses COVID-era governments ordered colleges to develop to develop more nurses, long-term care assistants, etc.  But with a tech focus.  (note: Gupta isn’t around anymore: from what I understand he seems to have been eased out of the organization about a year ago in a power struggle with either his co-CEO or the Board or both, which may or may not be significant).

Q.  Isn’t there a kind of overlap here with Future Skills Centre (FSC)?

A.  Well, sort of.  FSC is meant to work out promising practices in workforce development and training, and this is what you might call a practical experiment in training.  In theory, if government were working in a joined up manner, you’d think that ISED would have designed this program with practical insights gained from FSC’s work in mind. 

Q.  And did they?

A.  Hard to tell one way or the other, but given how long knowledge translation takes in Ottawa, and the gentle disdain in which ISED holds ESDC (risotto and KD don’t mix), my guess would be no.

Q. So what is Palette supposed to be accomplishing, exactly?

A. According to Palette’s press release, this initiative will “help Canadian workers – including those from underrepresented groups – transition into new jobs in our highest-growth sectors across the country. Initial sectors will include digital technology, cyber security, agriculture technology, advanced manufacturing, clean technology, and biomanufacturing….Palette Skills will help to connect industry, employers, post-secondary institutions, and private training providers to deliver short-cycle upskilling programs to high-potential workers. Programs will be co-designed with industry and employers to reflect the skills and talent needs of our most innovative companies.”

Q. Which means…?

A. Hard to tell, isn’t it?  On one level, it sounds like another quasi-granting council, giving money to local public-private training partnerships.  On another, because Palette keeps touting its own record as a deliverer of skills training, it sounds like Palette is going to be involved in the design of various programs. 

Q. Since it won a competitive tender, Palette must have a substantive track record in the training business?

A. Well, funny you should ask.  Palette describes itself as “having in-depth experience leading and delivering upskilling programs throughout Canada, across a range of high-growth sectors, getting people to jobs.”  But according to its website, its track record involves running exactly two training programs, with a total of 500 graduates. 

 Q. That sounds a bit thin.  What’s all this costing?

A.  $250 million.

Q. Excuse me?!

A.  You heard me.

Q.  Two Hundred and Fifty?  Million?

A. Yes.

Q. Dollars?

A. Yes.  Over two years.

Q. To a company with a miniscule track record?  In a budget year where the government appears to be allocating zero, diddly, jack squat to the research granting councils?  Won’t the university sector at least take this as a snub?

A.  Ok, look, this year the Government is super-concerned about the deficit and so isn’t spending any money.  But this program was announced back in Budget 2021when we were all working under COVID rules, and the number of zeros in a project budget didn’t matter.  It’s unfair to compare one situation to the other, and the unfortunate juxtaposition is only happening because ISED took 22 months to organize an RFP and announce a winner.

Q.  Oy.

A.  Yes.  But that’s not a question.

Q.  Is this initiative going to work?

A. Depends on your criteria.  Near as I can tell the only hard target laid out by the feds is that Palette manages to churn out the 15,500 “trained workers” it promises (what kind of training?  At what level?  Delivered by whom? Shrug), and with a budget equivalent to $16,000 or so per graduate for a “short-cycle” (weeks?  months?) program that shouldn’t be hard to do.  But without seeing the funding agreement it’s hard to know for sure what the feds think they are getting for this money, other than the ability to point at the fact that they are supporting some particularly gee-whizzy tech fields, and in truth they got most of the political value for the program just by announcing it and funding it.

Q. That doesn’t sound reassuring.

A.  Look, never say never.  Sometimes new organizations come storming out of the gate and do fantastic things.  And supporting emerging tech industries by expanding the workforce in fast-growing sectors is in principle a pretty decent idea, one which supports entire industries rather than specific companies.

Q. But?

A. Precisely because the industries they are talking about are pretty hi-tech, it’s not always clear that short-term programs like the ones being touted here can actually bridge people in.  Coding boot-camps employment statistics look pretty good, but they are juiced by the fact that a lot of people taking these courses already had some industry experience.  My guess is results in terms of placement and salary for graduates will vary quite a bit by industry, by partner, and by the kinds of learners that end up in these programs

Q. That’s a strong “wait and see,” then?

A. Yep.  I think you can pretty much count on some good stories coming out of this.  The question will be whether the government could have achieved its aims with less money.  But that would take the kind of program evaluation capacity that Ottawa simply does not have any more.