While MPs do the summer BBQ circuit in their ridings, the CTF is ramping up for an August campaign on MP pensions.

Just before MPs jetted back to their constituencies in June, they approved a nice pay raise for themselves, increased their living allowance, and allowed their colleagues the choice to opt back into the "gold plated and illegal (for regular taxpayers)" pension plan.

Forty-eight 48 MPs are now eligible to opt back in: 38 Reformers, 6 Liberals and 4 Bloc Quebecois. These MPs (and others who no longer sit in Parliament) that opted out of the plan in 1995 showed leadership and made a tremendous financial sacrifice in their principled opposition to the current MP pension plan. And they embarrassed the rest of their colleagues who still benefit from this taxpayer-funded version of Freedom 55 for the political class.

While, the CTF believes MPs should be entitled to a fair pension plan: a matching dollar for dollar group RRSP scheme would be appropriate as opposed to the current scheme.

This week we will ask all 48 MPs whether to plan to plunge back into the pension trough. Their responses (or lack thereof) will then determine the scope, tone and tactics of our August campaign.

But the initial response by Reform Party members and its apparatchiks is less than encouraging. Shortly after news of our campaign and a similar effort by the National Citizens Coalition (NCC) broke, concerned calls from Reform MPs were logged by the CTF. A cry of "Why is the CTF focussing on us when we did the honourable thing in 1995 " was the common refrain.

Quite simply, we focus on you because your behaviour on the pay raise issue in June gives us pause for concern. And besides, democracy works well when we remind MPs about their previous commitments and principles. Southam News quoted Reform's czar of communications Jim Armour as follows; "I guess the NCC and the taxpayers federation will try to do what it takes to raise money and boost membership."

Try again Mr. Armour. It was the Reform Party that made MP pensions a symbolic issue in the 1993 campaign and during the 1995 committee hearings. It was your party that sold memberships, raised money and received voter support due to the MP pension issue.

Questioning other's motives deflects attention from the real issue. The CTF has been consistent on this issue of MP compensation, including pensions. It is the Reform Party's consistency that is presently in doubt.

But Mr. Armour wasn't the only Reformer feeling the sweltering summer heat from this issue. Reform House Leader Randy White, who incidentally was at the table cutting the back-room, no-vote, no-debate pay deal, with the other parties is quoted as saying "it is unfortunate that the federation is so narrow-minded."

Well Mr. White, we will not stoop to character attacks. Instead, allow me to pose a question. What on earth compelled you to get into bed with the Liberals and the other parties on this sleazy deal By conspiring with the rest of the Ottawa gang to disregard the Blais Commission recommendations on MP compensation (and its 250K price tag) to make up your own pay package, you certainly weren't doing politics differently as you promised in 1993 and again in 1997.

If all 48 MPs answer our survey by reaffirming their commitment to stay out of the pension plan, then we won't need to run a campaign.

In the meantime, Mssrs. Armour and White should take a long hard look in the mirror. When you make your political bed on an issue, don't be surprised when people expect you to lie in it.