Government of Canada navigation bar

Symbol of the Government of Canada

Primary site navigation bar

Additional Evaluation Criteria

In addition to the Mandatory Eligibility Criteria, the Marine Safety Proposal Review Committee members, in assessing the relative strength of the proposals, will also consider the criteria set out in A, B and C below.

  1. Effectiveness in making progress towards achieving the programs objectives. The degree to which the proposed project:
    • improves the safety of Canadians by promoting responsibility and instilling behavioural change and action;
    • reinforces/strengthens current initiatives addressing boating safety research and development;
    • increases quality and timeliness of collecting and assessing national boating related data/statistical information;
    • provides concrete milestones and expected results within a reasonable time-frame; and
    • provides a process to monitor progress and measure the project’s impacts.

  2. Experience and Competence. The degree to which the proposed project demonstrates a likely chance of short-term success and long-term impact and success, based on:
    • the proponent’s mandate and/or experience and expertise;
    • the proponent’s demonstrated commitment based on former projects; and
    • sufficient institutional, management/organizational structure, financial and other support to successfully deliver the project.

  3. Other Criteria. In its overall selection, the “Marine Safety Proposal Review Committee” will give consideration to the following (in addition to the above-described criteria) to ensure an assortment of initiatives are funded which produce results supportive of the overall Programs’ strategic objectives;
    • variety of initiatives;
    • balance of innovation (new projects) versus enhancement of existing initiatives;
    • regional balance or national in scope, if applicable;
    • proposals that identify a combination of cash outlay and in-kind contributions will be viewed more favourably than those with only in-kind support; and
    • proposals that identify a greater than 25% non-federal government funding will also be viewed more favourably.
Date modified:
2010-01-14