INTERESTINGLY, Sylvia Jones' first question posed in the Ontario Legislature raised an issue that won a classically inappropriate response from the minister she tackled.

As you'll read elsewhere in this issue, the newly elected MPP for Dufferin-Caledon sought a response from Rick Bartolucci, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, concerning the recent resignation of the Orangeville Fire Department's seven "two hatters."

Noting that the seven resigned because they received letters indicating that they were violating the union's constitution by being employed full-time in one department and acting as a volunteer with another, she asked whether the government was prepared to implement a report from mediator George Adams, which found that smaller fire departments that rely on volunteers should be able to continue using "two hatters."

The minister's reply was a classic cop-out. He said the McGuinty government "has not changed its position and we do not believe that legislation or interference in the collective bargaining process is the solution to this issue."

Clearly, legislation is required when you have a situation that not only involves public safety but has enormously different impacts on large and small municipalities.

As we see it, there's no doubt whatsoever that many "two hatters" are firefighters in Toronto, Brampton and Mississauga who find housing too expensive there and as a result are living outside the Greater Toronto Area, in communities that are too small to have a significant number of professional firefighters.

In Orangeville's case, the seven firefighters who found themselves threatened by their union with loss of their livelihood if they continued to volunteer their services were undoubtedly among the best-qualified members of the local fire department, and their loss has left Orangeville-area residents a little less safe than they were beforehand.

Clearly, if Ontario even had a "right to work" law of the sort found in many U.S. states, such threats would ring hollow. But as matters stand, the "two hatters" really were left with no choice.

Ironically, the union is defending its action on grounds of public safety, contending that a "two hatter" who responds to a fire call in his home community might not be sufficiently alert during his next shift as a professional firefighter.

If that really were the case, the call for the firefighters to quit volunteering would be coming from their employers, not the union.

In the circumstances, the government surely should pass a law similar to that envisioned in MP Ted Arnott's private member's bill, which would protect the two hatters' status.