In the midst of my usual post-budget media scrums in the foyer of the Legislature at Queen's Park on Monday afternoon, my pager vibrated repeatedly. But instead of media calls, friends and colleagues besieged me from across the country wondering what happened in Ontario?

Did Dalton McGuinty author the budget? Did someone kidnap the old Ernie Eves and replace him with an impostor? And what happened to the firm and resolute Janet Ecker who stared down teachers' unions in her previous life as Education Minister? Valid questions indeed.

In the lockup, disappointment was the common theme in discussions amongst business groups, boards of trade and other similar minded organizations. And more than a few talking heads commented on the tragic irony of the budget title Keeping the Promise. The only promises kept were ones of higher spending, delayed tax cuts and abandoning any semblance of debt reduction.

But we shouldn't be surprised that the Eves government chose this direction; after all it was clearly telegraphed in the Throne Speech in May.

To be fair, the increases in health care and education are function of promises made back in the 1999 election in the Tories' Blueprint campaign document. In addition, allocating almost $500 million to the environment ministry envelope over two years was a direct result of the province's unequivocal acceptance of Justice O'Connor's Walkerton inquiry report. Outside of these three priority envelopes, expenditures actually dropped by 2%. Though this is more a result of ending one-time items as opposed to a systemic plan of expenditure reduction.

A record expenditure of $65.533 billion sets an ominous tone for the next election. And as predicted in this space on Saturday, both Mssrs. McGuinty and Hampton were all over Queen's Park saying they'd spend even more of your tax dollars in their post-budget interviews.

Overall annual spending growth since 1998-99 has tracked as follows: 2.31%, 7.13%, minus 0.50%, 2.82% and 3.99% growth for this year over last. During this time, spending growth has exceeded the combined rate of inflation plus population growth.

On pages 65 and 66 of the budget, spending is outlined in two telling pie charts. Some 39% - $25.7 billion - of all expenditure dollars now go to health care and when debt interest payments (Ontario's third largest expenditure area) are excluded, health spending jumps to a whopping 47%.

In the budget the government acknowledges that spiralling health care costs are a national problem, but defining this scope does not excuse Health Minister Tony Clement along with Ms. Ecker and the Premier from their collective duty to outline their plan with respect to health system reform. Where is it?

With this year's 7% health spending growth, in less than a decade Ontario will need just two ministries: Finance to collect your taxes, and health to spend them. Then how do we fund and deliver every other public service?

Another problem with the budget is that the government refuses to disclose its projections for revenues and expenditures beyond the current fiscal year. This is a big blow to transparency and truth in budgeting. Ms. Ecker could learn a thing or two from the feds and their practice of projecting rolling two-year analyses in budget documents and offering up five-year private sector consensus forecasts in federal economic updates.

Turning to the revenue side of the budget, many questions need to be answered. To start, the Tories will delay cuts to personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and augmentation of the private school tax credit by one year. Instead of taking effect on January 1, 2003, these measures are now slated to kick in on January 1, 2004.

Delaying tax relief may indeed be a prudent response to the present fiscal situation as the budget asserts. However, this requires an amendment to the Taxpayer Protection Act since it states that delays of legislated (from previous budgets) tax decreases are tantamount to tax increases and must therefore be put to the people via referendum.

To pass the smell test, this amendment must be specific to the tax cuts delayed and must expire - a sunset clause if you will - on or before the eve of next year's budget. The fact that neither political nor ministry staff from finance could produce a copy or draft text of the language to be used in this amendment - and I asked several of them for it repeatedly during four hours in lockup - is very troubling.

And other than a $1 billion reserve, the government has again failed to provide intergenerational fiscal leadership by refusing to establish a legislated debt reduction schedule. Net provincial debt still hovers at $110.5 billion and debt interest payments chew up $8.5 billion annually or almost $1 million per hour.

Perhaps it's time to issue an all points bulletin. Lost, prudent fiscal managers, if found, please return to Ontario.