If Canadians want to compare the rhetoric of compassion to the reality of delivering core services such as education and health care, they need look no further than the recent British Columbia and Alberta budgets. The different plans offer a valuable object lesson as to why basic governing skills - like the ability to count - should take precedence over political rhetoric about "protecting" health care and education.

In introducing their eighth consecutive deficit budget in BC, the NDP argues that all other governments in Canada were wrong to cut spending to balance their books. Presumably, the cutting approach places patient and student interests behind those of unfeeling bean counters.

"Deficits mean little to patients on wait lists," said Ms. MacPhail, in one of many sound bites designed to justify drowning fiscal prudence in the same waters soon to be traversed by new over-budget ferries.

But what of the damn-the-deficit-and-full-speed-ahead-on-spending approach as it relates to social programs Here are some 1999 budget facts from both provinces: BC will spend 2.0% more this year on basic education while Alberta will pump up that budget by 7.1%. Health care spending will rise by 6.6% in BC, while Alberta's increase is 8.7%.

Some may argue that Alberta's program spending increases only make up for cuts earlier this decade. Well, that argument ignores Alberta's late 1980s and early 1990s overspending binge, where Tory MLAs routinely promised a new hospital in every riding, needed or not. In addition, Alberta's population is on average, younger and healthier than BC's, so current per capita health care comparisons that do not account for such factors are highly misleading. (Health care costs grow as one ages.)

Statistical wrangling over the "proper" levels of program spending aside, there is one fact not subject to statistical manipulation: every tax dollar spent on debt interest is one dollar that cannot be spent on programs, debt reduction or tax relief. On just taxpayer-supported debt, Alberta's taxpayers will pay $565 million less in interest costs than they did in 1993-94 due to fiscal surpluses that reduced Alberta's debts. Meanwhile, BC taxpayers will fork over $440 million more in debt interest costs than they did six years ago. Ms. MacPhail talks of making "choices." The choices made by BC's finance ministers since just 1994 means $440 million less is available in 1999 for program spending (i.e. hospitals or schools) or tax relief.

The disparity can not be chalked up to "declining resource revenues" or the "Asian flu" in British Columbia. In truth, declining oil prices have hit Alberta's treasury far harder. This year in Alberta, natural resource tax revenues will be 36% lower, or $1.37 billion less, compared with what flowed into Alberta's treasury two years ago. Comparatively, BC's natural resource revenues will drop by only 14.4% -- or $317 million. And overall revenues Including transfers from Ottawa, BC will take in as much revenue this budget year as it did two years ago and run a $900 million dollar deficit (if one ignores additional deficits shifted off the main ledger). Alberta will gather $1 billion less than it did two years ago and post a $600 million surplus. The Clark government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Not surprisingly, political debates in other capitals and in Ottawa now center on how best to restructure and lower taxes. It is a debate now years away in British Columbia as Glen Clark and his band of ideologues march bravely in the opposite direction having abandoned any serious plan or intention of ever balancing the province's books. And as Ms. MacPhail candidly reminds us "our fiscal situation is probably going to get worse."

If one believes that government funding for education and health is the ultimate test of compassion -- not always a wise assumption -- then declining debt interest charges means patients and students are more protected in Alberta, while growing debt interest payments in BC endanger the same.

The truth is, Glen Clark and company's desire to "grow" the budget out of deficits rather than prune spending first, means BC's fiscal tree is poised to topple over under the weight of additional debt interest. When it does, government spending nested in the branches will also face the inevitable crash. The message is simple: Prune spending now or start wearing hard-hats.