The rules governing budget control were considered too restrictive by the CFDCs. To collect the subsidy, each CFDC signed a contract with HRDC that established ties between the funding and the attainment of objectives. In the first phase, the subsidy covered total expenditures; in the second, it was only enough for part of the costs and involved red tape and more meticulous verification of the eligibility of all expenses. The requirements, both in terms of financial justification and multiple activity reports, were considered burdensome and some felt they exceeded those of CED for a bigger budget. Note that around the same time the Minister responsible for HRDC in Ottawa had to account to Parliament for the breakdown and management of certain grants. This difference in the way departments managed budgets, while understood by the CFDCs, was an irritant for some of their managements. Yet the gap appears to have narrowed because the latest agreements between CED and CFDCs call for accountability with quantitative and qualitative objectives.
Also, all the financial uncertainly caused by the delays in awarding the subsidy and the declining amounts spawned discontent. Yet the CFDCs appreciated HRDC's efforts to arrange financing for the project. The money was essential for carrying it out and supporting the resources in the community.