In just over 48 hours Ontario Finance Minister Janet Ecker will table her first budget in the Legislature at Queen's Park. Yes that's right, Ontario still hasn't tabled its 2002/2003 budget yet, even though we are some 10 weeks into the fiscal year already.

As yesterday's editorial pointed out, we deserve to have a sense of the direction in which Premier Eves intends to drive his government until he must seek the judgment of the people, likely in the spring or fall of 2003. A budget is not only a statement of the government's finances but an expression to Ontarians and the international community of the government's agenda, direction and financial acumen.

Before we get to the substance and predictions of the forthcoming budget this timing issue needs to be addressed both from a personal perspective of consistency and from a global perspective of legitimate governance.

This past March, yours truly dumped on the City of Ottawa for passing the 2002 budget almost three months into the calendar year because it's pretty tough to manage or find flexibility within fiscal envelopes when 25% of the year and perhaps 25% of expenditures have been incurred. Thankfully, the city adopted a more progressive framework for Budget 2003 with approval of the budget expected in early January. So my criticism of the province is not inconsistent.

And in fairness to our friends at Queen's Park, the May 9th Throne Speech promised an end to late spring budgets. Good, because the recent and habitual practice of May budgets is inexcusable. Running the province on special warrants for weeks on end is an embarrassment to Ontario. We should lead the way for the federation in delivering a budget soon after Ottawa tables its budget, usually in mid-February.

Even with this year's leadership race and power transition, the Eves government could have easily delivered a budget in early May since Ottawa tabled its budget last December and a great deal of work had already been completed by finance ministry staff.

So what can we expect on Monday? In a word, spending, and lots of it. With in-year spending for 2001/2002 close to $62 billion, look for a minimum 5% hike to a level near $66 billion. Part of this is to be expected. The government has 1999 campaign commitments to keep in health care and education spending. Its acceptance of the Walkerton Inquiry report in its entirety will also result in new spending. And then we have a variety of initiatives that were outlined in the Throne Speech that must also be costed.

But even if overall spending jumps by 5%, 6% or 10%, you can rest assured that the Liberals and NDP will still not be happy. Mssrs. McGuinty and Hampton will argue for more. And herein lies the dangerous political debate in which we may once again find ourselves. Instead of judging the success of our health care system, education infrastructure or environmental resources by what they produce (read: measuring outcomes) we could once again enter the farmers' auction world of government where the highest bidder (read: Spender) wins.

Worse still, this would then form the backdrop for the 2003 campaign where all parties would play the Trudeau-esque game of votes for dollars. We can only hope that Ms. Ecker doesn't make the first move in this destructive game on Monday by jacking up spending excessively.

Of course more spending means more taxes. So it is a safe assumption that sin taxes on cigarettes and boos will be hiked come Monday evening. Tobacco and alcohol taxes fall outside of the Tories' Taxpayer Protection Act (drafted by the CTF back in 1995) and let's face it, hiking sin taxes has always been politically expedient.

Yet there is no guarantee that the revenue raised by forcing smokers to pay more for their dirty, disgusting and death accelerating habit will be allocated to health care. Ditto for jacking the price of your favourite Chardonnay or Merlot. This is because governments - first and foremost - have expenditure problems, not revenue problems.

The other area that will probably be given the short shrift is debt reduction. Ontario's net debt now stands at $110.7 billion and debt interest charges represent $8.8 billion of yearly spending. That's over $1 million each hour just to pay the interest on the provincial credit card.

The reason for pessimism on this front is based on the following two observations. During the PC leadership race, only Ministers Flaherty and Witmer even broached the issue of debt reduction, the other three candidates (Ernie Eves, Tony Clement and Chris Stockwell) were silent on this issue. And more recently, as noted in my May 11th column, the Throne Speech didn't even mention debt reduction.

While the prognosis for this year's budget is quite negative, your not-so-humble scribe would willingly eat crow if Ms. Ecker defies predictions (including mine) and delivers a budget that focuses government priorities, presents a long-range tax cutting plan and leaves a legacy for our kids in the form of a legislated debt reduction schedule that eliminates the debt by 2030 or sooner.

Finally on a more positive note, there is one thing that we can take some comfort in … the budget will be balanced. Even though the balanced budget law gives the government the leeway to balance the budget over the term of a mandate (thereby allowing one or two deficits), this won't happen. The good folks at the Pink Palace in Toronto have said an emphatic NO to school board and hospital deficits so legitimacy dictates that they must play by the same rules.

In a budget that could be full of setbacks, small victories such as this one will have to be savoured. But again, this scribe would love to be pleasantly surprised when he opens up the budget in lock-up shortly after noon on Monday. Please Ms. Ecker, surprise me.