I believe that governments have to deal with things that are over longer periods of time. I appreciate the Bloc's recommendation of reducing the civil service by a third. Though that's not quite what you recommended, it's close.
There are programs that make sense in terms of social activism that are absolutely necessary, but we need to be sure that those programs actually give us some benefits. That holds for all government spending.
That was part of my second recommendation, that we need to see value for the spending. That means we need to look at things over a period of time. If we have a charity that claims to have had great success, what is the reality behind that? If we have a scientific research program that has a lot of good PR, what are the dollars that have really come from it? What are the successes? You can easily pick one or two great examples in a program, but if 99.9% is failed spending, then it's not the type of program we should be in.
Did that answer your question?