Five more days of strikes planned at SÉPAQ between June 20 and 24
The strike will take place from June 20 to 24, the union said Friday.
While wildlife reserves were affected during previous strike days in mid-May, this time will be different: most SÉPAQ establishments will be impacted.
'All bargaining units will be affected, except for the wildlife reserves and one lodge. So that means campgrounds, parks, the Montmorency Manor, the Chic-Chocs mountain lodge, and all tourist centres will be impacted,' said SFPQ president Christian Daigle.
The dispute centres mainly on wages. Daigle said many workers earn about $17 an hour and noted that the vast majority are seasonal employees.
The union is calling for a 17.4 per cent wage increase over five years—the same deal that was granted to all government employees.
'This has a major impact on the people we represent. When you only work four or five months a year, missing five days of work is a serious financial hit. So it's not something they do lightly—but people are tired of being taken advantage of and not being offered a fair financial agreement by their employer and, especially, by the Quebec government,' Daigle said. SÉPAQ responds
'The union has the right to strike and is free to choose its timing,' said Simon Boivin, SÉPAQ's media relations officer.
He said SÉPAQ submitted 'a third monetary offer' last Tuesday and remains open to negotiating daily to preserve the long weekend for Quebecers. The strike days coincide with Quebec's Fête nationale holiday.
'We want to improve employees' wages with a competitive offer for the tourism industry—one that takes into account the pension plan and other benefits. We're aiming for a balanced agreement that satisfies employees, respects the organization's ability to pay, and doesn't shift extra costs onto visitors. It's worth remembering that 85 per cent of SÉPAQ's revenue comes from its own activities and customer services,' Boivin added.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published in French on June 6, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
42 minutes ago
- CBC
Canada is running out of runway for its F-35 review
Social Sharing There was an interesting — albeit brief — recent eruption of clarity in the ongoing saga of whether Canada intends to proceed with the full order of American-made F-35 fighters. It was courtesy of the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, who perhaps spoke the quiet part out loud last week in an interview with Canadian independent podcaster Jasmin Laine. Hoekstra, a no-nonsense Republican from Michigan, was asked about the Liberal government's review of the $27.7-billion purchase of stealth fighters and the possibility that after delivery of the first tranche of jets, Canada could decide to fill the rest of its order with another type of aircraft. "You can't afford two fighters, two different fighter jet programs," said Hoekstra. "Canada should just decide what they want. Do they want F-35s? Do they want some other product? That's your decision to make, but you can't afford both of them." But then, he added that the ongoing review is "an irritant that makes it harder to get to a [trade] agreement." It's not much of a stretch to suggest that few Canadian tears would be shed over the notion that the Trump administration is irritated by the uncertainty. But the fact he's said so publicly is significant and it represents an interesting escalation from earlier remarks that suggested not buying the F-35s would endanger NORAD, the binational defence pact with the United States. What's even more potentially entertaining is the lengths to which everyone on the Canadian side has twisted themselves into pretzels to downplay the notion that the fighter jet program is being used as a significant piece of leverage in negotiations with Washington. Speaking on CBC Radio's The House last weekend, the country's top military commander, Gen. Jennie Carignan portrayed the review as a prudent, business-as-usual, due diligence exercise. "With the new government coming into place, it's perfectly normal," Carignan said. "There's a request to ensure that our processes are still valid, that we are getting what we need." With any other major defence purchase, that might be a reasonable argument. But the F-35 has been — over 15 years of political drama — the subject of enormous study. Parliamentary watchdogs, an independent panel and a legion of experts have lined up to analyze, slice, dice and dissect the plan. One wonders what more can be said that couldn't be found in a ministerial transition briefing book. The review has been going on since the early spring and with so much information already at their fingertips, the question of what the political impact might be only gets larger as time goes on. Retired vice-admiral Mark Norman, also speaking on The House last weekend, said there's obvious "trepidation" and consideration of "what kind of blowback reaction" there could be in Washington should Canada opt to shop elsewhere. Others argue that the tantrums of Trump and the irritation of his administration shouldn't dictate Canadian defence policy. "I think the Trump administration will decide if they wish to punish us or not based on whatever current thought of the moment is in the heads of the president and his key advisers," said Wendy Gilmour, a Canadian former assistant secretary general for defence investment at NATO. "I think Canada needs to make the best decisions it can for our own interests." And that's what makes the specifics of what, precisely, the Department of National Defence has been told to review so crucial. When you ask for the terms of reference or even the obstacles and costs of running two fleets of fighters, more often than not, you get boilerplate responses about spending wisely and the scope of the enormous investment. "The nature of aerial combat, the nature of warfare, the nature of our responsibilities, the scale of our investment — all of those elements have changed over the course of recent years," Prime Minister Mark Carney said a couple of weeks ago, while announcing a military pay increase. "We also need the appropriate air capabilities for the Arctic, for the runways in the Arctic, for the threats that we're faced in the Arctic … is the F-35 best suited for that?" The security risks for Canada The contract to buy the F-35 was announced in January 2023 and one would hope the debate about Arctic operations would have been long settled before that. It's important considering, as the Ottawa Citizen reported last month, construction of new hangar and infrastructure facilities to house the F-35s is about to get underway at the military's principal fighter bases in Cold Lake, Alta., and Bagotville, Que. Interestingly, the one non-political aspect of the F-35 deal that would provide an important, logical rationale for a review is the one nobody wants to discuss publicly: the potential national security risks to Canada. Buying the F-35 makes the Canadian air force dependent on the U.S. for software and repair, which has the potential to create delays in deployment and affect operational readiness. It was an issue that raised its head briefly after U.S. President Donald Trump returned to office last winter and suggested allies could end up with less capable versions of the aircraft. It could also be argued that the escalating costs (with the purchase estimate for 88 aircraft, including weapons and training, going from $19 billion to $27 billion), would justify an urgent review. Defence Minister David McGuinty, however, suggested last week the government would take its "lead from the experts that performed the review, both in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces." WATCH | Cost of F-35 program balloons: F-35 costs skyrocketing, not enough pilots to fly them: AG report 2 months ago A new Auditor General's report finds the cost of buying U.S.-made F-35 stealth fighter jets has ballooned almost 50 per cent from an estimated $19 billion to $27.7 billion — and that's without the additional cost of weapons and infrastructure. The program is also facing a shortage of trained pilots. As if there was any doubt about where the military stands, there was a pretty clear indication with a recent report by Reuters, based upon sources, which said the air force was recommending sticking with the F-35. Carney was clear that no decision had been made and that it would be sometime in the late summer or early fall before the review would be considered. Playing politics with defence purchases is nothing new in Canada, but Norman argues that given the state of the world, the military can't afford games and uncertainty, especially with the current CF-18s rapidly approaching the end of their useful life. "What we need to be careful of is that we don't inadvertently — or perhaps for superficial political reasons — make what I would characterize as dumb decision," Norman said.
CBC
42 minutes ago
- CBC
Cottage owners pull rentals as new licensing rules affect Ontario
Gabriel Leclerc owns two cottages in Calabogie, Ont. with his family. He's taking them off Airbnb after the township introduced short-term rental licensing rules in 2024. He and some other cottage owners say between fees and a complex administrative process, it's no longer worth renting out their vacation properties. "We were frankly not surprised because we knew that a lot of different municipalities and communities were looking at those types of licensing," he says. "But when we started going through it ... the rules and the intrusiveness of the process just became more excessive." Short-term rental licensing rules are becoming a popular way for municipalities to regulate vacation homes in Ontario's cottage country. But the new rules are causing frustrations among property owners, some of whom are pulling homes off the rental market rather than complying. Leclerc says he already pays for insurance, cleaning and property maintenance. He's frustrated by the added cost, and the fact that he's required to provide documents to the township he says they already have. His family is now planning on selling both their properties. "We had plans on renting them for a while, and then as the kids get older, using them for ourselves," he says. "And now ... that extra work and burden of licensing just doesn't make it worth it anymore." How do the rules work? It's up to each municipality in Ontario whether to regulate short-term rentals or require a landlord to obtain a short-term rental (STR) or short-term accommodation (STA) license for properties being rented out for a certain number of days each year. In Greater Madawaska, which includes Calabogie, short-term accommodation licensing costs homeowners $300 annually and covers the city's administration costs. Property owners must provide a map of their septic system and the property layout, among other requirements, if they plan to rent their cottage or home for fewer than 28 consecutive days. Currently, it's the only municipality in Renfrew County with the fee. Other areas of the province have adopted similar policies. Both Prince Edward County and the City of Ottawa have had policies in place since 2021. Municipalities in Haliburton County have had their own policies in place since 2024. According to the Township of Greater Madawaska's website, the bylaws are in place to ensure safety standards are met and "preserve the character" of the community. By registering a rental, a municipality can ensure fire codes, maximum occupancy rules, and noise bylaws are being followed. Other municipalities say the provincial housing crisis has created a need to regulate the number of short-term rentals. But some cottage owners say the policies aren't having the desired effect. 'Not worth renting' Kelly Percival-Green has owned her three-bedroom cottage, just steps away from Calabogie Peaks Resort, for more than four years. Her family bought it with the intention of using it as a winter ski cabin, and in the summer, renting it out occasionally to cover the cost of maintenance. But now, she says, she's been forced to pull it from the rental market because of STA regulations. She and her husband live two hours away. In order to comply with the bylaw, they would need to hire someone on-call who could respond to emergencies within an hour, and who could check the carbon monoxide and smoke detectors after every stay. "It just became so that it was not worth renting anymore," she says. "I'm all about safety, but that was a little bit overkill in my opinion." When she retires in a few years, she says she'll have to re-evaluate ownership. "It was very helpful to be able to rent it and see the bills partially paid. Now we're just paying the bills and we're cringing a little bit because it hurts financially." 'Level playing field' Not everyone is frustrated with the new rules. Meghan James, general manager of the Somewhere Inn in Calabogie, says the boutique motel already pays licensing and business registration fees. She says it's only fair that other STRs pay them too. "Change is always hard. But if you're running your home or your second home or cottage as a business, I think there's fees that are associated with that. So if you're generating revenue from that, you should budget in those licensing fees as well," she says. "I think it puts everybody kind of on a level playing field." She says regulation is important, not only for managing noise to respect neighbours who live in the area year-round, but for safety as well. "These guests … deserve that peace of mind. Knowing that if something happens, everything is taken care of, their water's being tested, they've got smoke alarms," she says. "You should have these things up to par just like any other accommodator would have to." But STR licenses haven't been applied evenly, according to J.T. Lowes, the owner of All Season Cottage Rentals in Haliburton County, which manages privately owned properties and helps to rent them out. Differences in application between municipalities mean some owners are paying more than others, and need to follow different rules, he says. There is no uniform definition of an STR and different municipalities charge licensing fees at varying rates. The cost of a short-term rental license in Minden Hills is about $500, compared to a host permit in Ottawa, which costs about $116 every two years. "It's predominantly impacting owners that only rent a handful of weeks each year," he says. "Investment owners that you see on Airbnb that are trying to maximize their rentals and income — this is just another ... expense to running a business — at the end of the day, it's not impacting them as much. "It's leading to a big black market of rentals," he says. "They're they're still renting, but they're doing it quietly underground, you know, friends and family ... to avoid having to license." The regulations are hurting Ontario tourism, he believes. Since the municipalities in Haliburton County enacted STR bylaws in October 2024, he says he's lost half his business. He's had to lay off one full-time employee, and estimates at least 20 cleaning jobs have been lost. "Really we're not against rentals rental licensing, there is a need for that," he says. "But the devil's in the details." Minden Hills Councillor Pam Sayne says because the rules are so new, it will take time to work out the kinks. Her township has its own policy, and she says municipalities in Haliburton County are working to find a balance between supporting jobs in tourism and managing the number of short-term rentals taking up valuable housing space. "The short-term rentals are a big industry here providing lots of jobs for cleaning," she says. "But we also need places for those people to live." Provincial oversight Sayne says fine-tuning the bylaw would be faster with support from the province. "I think that for every municipality to have to go through this process with all of our staff time and all of our legal time going into providing these short-term rental agreements and and how to operate this — that's something that could have been incorporated and done more at the provincial level," she says. CBC reached out to the ministry of tourism but did not hear back. Leclerc in Calabogie doesn't mind the regulations, but would like them simplified. "It just became this overbearing overreach that just doesn't make it worth it to continue," he says. Greater Madawaska did not respond to requests for comment. But Sayne says what the township does next will inform how similar policies are implemented across the province.
CBC
42 minutes ago
- CBC
Travel plans dashed by Air Canada strike? You may have more rights than you think
The Air Canada flight attendants strike has disrupted travel for hundreds of thousands of passengers. As travellers scramble to rearrange their plans, many are seeking answers about their rights. They may be surprised to learn that passengers set to depart from most European countries have more protections than those booked on domestic flights. Here's what you need to know about your rights if your Air Canada travel plans have suddenly unravelled. You have a right to a rebooked flight Under Canada's Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR), if your flight is cancelled due to a labour disruption, airlines must offer you a choice between a cash refund or a rebooked flight. "For better or for worse, you don't have to take the refund," says Ian Jack, spokesperson for the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA), a non-profit travel agency. According to the APPR, if a large airline, such as Air Canada, can't rebook you on a partner airline within 48 hours after your original departure time, the carrier must attempt to rebook you on any airline — even a major competitor. If there's nothing available, the airline must search for alternative flights at another nearby airport, and provide transport to that airport. Airlines that don't comply face hefty fines. Earlier this year, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) hit Westjet with a $204,000 penalty for failing to rebook passengers whose flights were cancelled during a WestJet mechanics strike in 2024. Any passengers who believe Air Canada didn't honour their rebooking rights can file a complaint with the CTA. However, they may be in for a long wait for resolution; in June, the federal regulator reported a backlog of more than 87,000 air passenger complaints. Also, some passengers may find themselves stranded despite Air Canada's best efforts. That's because the carrier is the country's largest airline, and its flight attendants have walked off the job during peak summer travel season. "There's just not enough left on WestJet, Air Transat, etc. to [rebook] everybody," said Jack. "Unfortunately, some people may be left without a lot of alternatives right now other than to take the refund." Air Canada echoed that thought in an online statement where it pledged to "provide customers alternative travel options to the extent possible." Consumer advocate Geoff White argues the lack of alternative flights for disrupted passengers highlights another problem: lack of competition in Canada's airline industry. "The reason why so many people are stranded right now is we don't have [enough] competition," said White, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. "This has to be the wake-up call." In June, Canada's Competition Bureau stated that the country's airline industry is highly concentrated with two major carriers — Air Canada and WestJet. It called for increased competition, and recommended relaxing rules that limit foreign ownership of Canadian airlines. Passengers flying from EU countries have more rights Under the current APPR, airlines are under no obligation to compensate passengers for their hotel and incidentals if they're delayed at their destination due to a strike. "Air Canada can choose, for goodwill purposes, to help you out with that, but there's no legal obligation," said Jack. Passengers also can't claim compensation for flight delays and cancellations; the APPR considers job actions beyond an airline's control. However, affected Air Canada passengers can claim compensation for both their added travel expenses and flight disruptions if their cancelled flight departed from the United Kingdom or European Union-member countries. That's because passengers departing from those countries are covered by EU air passenger rights which provide wider protections compared to the APPR. WATCH l Passengers' travel plan disrupted by Air Canada strike: Air Canada passengers in limbo as flight attendants' strike enters 3rd day 20 hours ago Another day of uncertainty awaited Air Canada travellers on Monday after striking flight attendants defied a federal back-to-work order and delayed the airline's plans to restart operations. 'We haven't slept, we've been calling, we're tired,' said one frustrated passenger trying to fly to Portugal for her honeymoon. Similar to Canadian regulations, EU rules state airlines can deny compensation for flight disruptions caused by a strike. However, the EU regulations specify that this exemption only applies to disputes that don't involve the airline. A strike by an airline's own staff "does not release the airline from its obligation to pay compensation," the EU states online. Passengers who endure flight delays and cancellations can choose to file compensation claims under the APPR or EU regulations. Consequently, affected Air Canada passengers who qualify under EU rules can seek reimbursement for added expenses, plus compensation of up to €600 ($965 CAD). Passengers departing from the U.K. can claim up to £520 ($970 CAD). "In Europe, the view is a lot more consumer-friendly by saying, "No, no, the airline certainly could control how it interacts with its unions and the onus should be on the airline,'" said White. "We've got a long way to go here in Canada." Jack agrees. When it comes to air travel, "if something goes wrong in Europe, you're going to get treated better than you are in Canada," he said. Where are the new rules? More than two years ago, the federal government proposed changes to the APPR that, if they had been enacted by now, might have helped out many Air Canada passengers. The proposed changes, designed to strengthen the APPR, include a requirement for airlines to cover hotel costs and incidentals during any type of flight disruption — including those caused by labour disruptions. Jack says it's unfortunate the proposed rules remain in limbo as passengers grapple with the Air Canada strike. "Sadly, it's not going to help people in this current circumstance," he said. "People would be in a better position today had the government moved forward with these [rules]." The Canadian Transportation Agency told CBC News consultations for the proposed rules wrapped up in March, and that there's no timeline yet for when they will take effect. The agency did not directly answer questions about why it was taking so long to implement the new rules.
