Overview of the Summative Evaluation of the Canadian Initiative for the Economic Diversification of Communities Reliant on Chrysotile (CEDICRC)

About this publication

Publication author : Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions

Catalogue: Iu90-4/58-2-2022E-PDF

ISBN: 978-0-660-44080-4

Publish date: August 30, 2022

Summary: This report presents an overview of our principal achievements described in our Summative Evaluation of the Canadian Initiative for the Economic Diversification of Communities Reliant on Chrysotile.

The CEDICRC in a nutshell

• The goal of the Initiative, which had a budget of $50.3M,was to support the economic diversification of the Les Appalaches and Les Sources RCMs after their economies were disrupted because of the closure of their asbestos mines.
• The Initiative was implemented by Canada Economic Development (CED) from June 11, 2013, to March 31, 2020.
• The Initiative had two components and provided funding for 65 projects:
  1. Businesses and NPOs (54 projects funded; 64% of total funding)
  2. Infrastructure (11 projects funded, 36% of total funding)

About the evaluation

• Three aspects of the Initiative were evaluated:
  • The extent to which the Initiative met the needs of the targeted clientele
  • The achievement of results, their sustainability, and the impacts of the Initiative
  • The implications and the barriers to accessibility for target groups
• The Summative Evaluation complements the Mid-Term Evaluation published in 2018.
• The data analyzed comes from internal and external interviews, a survey, analyses of economic and program data, and documentation relating to the implementation.

Evaluation findings

1. Overall, the Initiative had the right tools to meet economic diversification needs. The eligibility of NPO and public infrastructure projects were key success factors.
   • The analyses point to positive economic development and economic diversification, particularly so in the Les Appalaches RCM:
   • In the Les Appalaches RCM in particular, communities have been revitalized, the industrial structure is more diverse, and the pool of businesses has been renewed.
   • However, the fact that priority was given to the Initiative over regular programs, and the breakdown of funding between the two regions, have raised questions among community stakeholders. CED would therefore have benefited from a better communication of its decisions regarding the implementation of the Initiative.
2. Given the lack of targets covering the overall period of the Initiative, it is impossible to determine the degree to which the results were achieved. The qualitative data, however, points to positive and lasting results:
   • Jobs created and maintained, and the attraction and retention of businesses in the RCMs;
     100%

     of the businesses supported by CED maintained or created jobs
      

     87%

     of the businesses supported by CED maintained or increased their annual sales

     $37.5M

     in total investments generated to assist businesses in the communities
      

   • Energy generated within the communities and pride in the communities that have been revitalized.
   • The level of satisfaction with the Initiative was higher in the Les Appalaches RCM than in the Les Sources RCM. The dissatisfaction of Les Sources RCM stakeholders was compounded by their lack of knowledge of the mechanisms available to address the challenges they were experiencing. 
3. There are no gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) requirements associated with the Initiative as a whole, since GBA+ only became a government-wide priority after the Initiative was launched.
   • CED did, however, comply with government requirements by completing a GBA+ as part of the required authorizations for the Les Appalaches RCM’s gas pipeline project.

Lesson learned

CED would have stood to gain from better communicating its decisions about the suspension of regular programs during the implementation of the Initiative and the modulation of financing between the two territories.

Initiative good practices

CED’s use of a variety of intervention levers, such as funding for infrastructure and local investment funds, was a good practice. Infrastructure funding led to the establishment of conditions that had a significant impact on the attraction and retention of businesses, and the local investment fund ensured the sustainability of the intervention and fostered a development approach based on local priorities. This good practice is worth considering for interventions that target economic diversification, subject to the availability of funds and compliance with federal government requirements.

How to contact us

Find out all the ways you can contact us.

Client satisfaction

Let us know what you think about our services.

Stay tuned for advice and services from CED