Four Reformers have signaled their intention to opt back into the gold-plated pension plan. And it seems that three of them, Jim Hart, Bill Gilmour and Jim Gouk, are having a little trouble distinguishing fact from fiction.

On CTV's Sunday Edition, Jim Hart tried to peddle the following nose stretchers to Canadians.

Hart: "We opted out to change the 1993, uh, uh, pension plan. We did that successfully in 1995 -" "I'm sure after spending five years in the House of Commons now, and we've had two changes to the MP pension plan -"

Sorry Mr. Hart, entirely false and misleading on both counts. The government, through Bill C-85, made only one set of changes to the plan in 1995 and then you and 50 of your Reform colleagues opted out because the plan was still too rich.

"Bill C-85 does not propose a fiscally responsible plan - Where is the government's sense of responsibility Where is their sense of morality in this proposed scheme Where is their sense of leadership "-- Jim Hart, House of Commons, June 22, 1995.

These questions are very valid. Mr. Hart needs to stand in front of the mirror and ask them!

Not to be outdone, Bill Gilmour is definitely a candidate for the liars club after reading his open letter to his constituents.

Gilmour: "When I first ran in 1993, I was very vocal about the richness of the pension plan then in place. Subsequently, 61 MPs from three different parties opted out of this rich plan. This forced the Liberals to change the legislation -"

What a load of rubbish. As we have already pointed out, changes were made to the plan in 1995, then Gilmour and 60 other MPs opted out.

"The new plan is hardly any better or different from the old plan - Members with any conscience will think twice before gorging into this tax trough and opt out." -- Bill Gilmour, House of Commons, June 22, 1995.

Finally, Jim Gouk has told a few of his own fibs. To his credit, he does better than Hart or Gilmour with historical facts. Yet he gets dizzy from his own spindoctoring.

Gouk: "Reforms's battle cry was that MPs deserved a pension, provided it was in line with what is available to others - There was only one problem - no one ever defined available to others."

Wrong again. The Reform Party's 1997 Election Platform, Fresh Start, clearly spells out this definition.

"The Reform Party supports the provision of pensions for MPs ONLY IF those pensions are no more generous than private sector norms and meet all requirements for a registered plan under the Income Tax Act."

The MP pension plan is more generous than private sector norms and the accrual rate would be defined as illegal under the Income Tax Act.

Thirty-two of Mr. Gouk's colleagues in the Reform Party seemed to understand party policy very clearly. They have displayed leadership by deciding, once again, to stay out of the MP pension plan.

By their actions, Mssrs. Hart, Gilmour and Gouk have betrayed their constituents, their party and Canadian taxpayers.

This betrayal is serious enough. Please gentleman, don't lie to us and make it even worse; Kenneth Starr already has enough on his plate south of the border.