Labour Minister Patty Hajdu is under fire after refusing to provide evidence for her claim that Air Canada flight attendants’ strike threatened deliveries of medicine and organ tissue. The minister has faced past criticism for making unsubstantiated statements to defend strike bans.“Shipments of critical goods such as pharmaceuticals and organ tissue should continue to reach their destinations,” Hajdu told reporters, per Blacklock's Reporter, calling the strike “simply unacceptable” and a risk to “the safety of Canadians.” She added the walkout caused “significant harm” to both the public and the economy.Neither Hajdu’s office nor the labour department would identify any source for her warning that emergency health care was endangered by 10,000 flight attendants. A similar situation arose in 2021 when the department claimed a Port of Montréal longshoremen’s strike threatened deliveries of pandemic medicine. Access To Information records later showed no vaccines were at risk, with fruit spoilage identified as the main issue..In 2018 Hajdu invoked an anecdote about a disabled man named Jack to end a postal strike, alleging he was evicted after missing a disability cheque. But postal workers and Canada Post confirmed socio-economic cheques were always delivered during strikes under a longstanding agreement. “I don’t know who Jack is,” said then-union president Mike Palecek.On Saturday Hajdu ordered flight attendants into arbitration just three hours into their walkout, marking the eighth time in a year the cabinet has used section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to quash a lawful strike. That is a record for any federal government. Federal Court rulings are pending on whether such use of section 107 is legal.“Canadians have already sacrificed a lot in this uncertain economy and this labour disruption is adding to their worries and financial burden,” Hajdu said. She denied the government was anti-union, but when pressed on workers’ rights, replied, “Strikes are very disruptive.”A May 23 labour department memo cautioned section 107 should be used sparingly. Union lawyers argue repeated bans breach freedom of association, with one filing stating the minister “substantially interfered with the collective bargaining process.”
