Marathon runner Jennifer McCreath has pointed out a recent regulatory change that the Harper Conservatives have made to the Aeronautics Act (i.e. passed by ministerial fiat, rather than shepherded through Parliamentary process) that potentially affects many trans (and cis) Canadians and could even ban some from air travel:
Sec 5.2(1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if
(a) the passenger presents a piece of photo identification and does not resemble the photograph;
(b) the passenger does not appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification he or she presents;
(c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents; or
(d) the passenger presents more than one form of identification and there is a major discrepancy between those forms of identification.
(2) Despite paragraph (1)(a), an air carrier may transport a passenger who presents a piece of photo identification but does not resemble the photograph if
(a) the passenger's appearance changed for medical reasons after the photograph was taken and the passenger presents the air carrier with a document signed by a health care professional and attesting to that fact; or
(b) the passenger's face is bandaged for medical reasons and the passenger presents the air carrier with a document signed by a health care professional and attesting to that fact.
5.3 (1) If there is a major discrepancy between the name on the identification presented by a passenger and the name on the passenger's boarding pass, an air carrier shall compare the name, date of birth and gender on the identification with those of persons specified to the air carrier by the Minister under paragraph 4.81(1)(b) of the Act. (2) If the name, date of birth and gender on the identification are the same as those of a person specified to the air carrier, the air carrier shall immediately so inform the Minister.
This is a regulatory change made on July 29, 2011, and so far, it doesn't appear that there have been any reports of transsexual or transgender people being refused passage on an airline because of this change. However, regulatory changes aren't always made instantaneously.
The medical exemption appears to provide an allowance for specifically transsexual individuals, though not all transsexuals take a medical route, and certainly some will forget, be unaware of the requirement or be unable to afford to pay the fee for a sufficient doctor's letter (my doctor would charge $100 for such a letter under his current fee structure). It would almost certainly affect undocumented transsexual individuals (surgery-tracked or otherwise), since most Canadian provinces require evidence of genital reconstruction surgery before allowing the change of gender markers on foundational documents (all of them, when it comes to birth certificates). This is further complicated by the fact that some provinces have removed coverage for this surgery from their "universal" health coverage -- and even when coverage exists, standards of care call for a minimum of one year living as one's identified gender before surgery can occur (2 years in some provinces, including Ontario).
That is to say, the medical exemption appears to provide an allowance for specifically transsexual individuals at first. The way it's worded in the new language of the law, the exemption applies only to a discrepancy between the photograph and appearance -- discrepancies involving the gender marker on documentation are not addressed.
Still, it's not explained what circumstances would be necessary to determine whether a person appears to be of the gender indicated on their identification, so people of diverse gender expressions (including some cis / non-trans Canadians) could be potentially affected, and scan-or-search procedures could also unfairly single out visibly intersexed people. By the letter of the law, a major change in hair length or colour since having an ID photo taken could even be a basis for refusing a person from boarding, though that's likely stretching it. But by not clarifying how this value judgment on a person's gender is to be made, lookism has potentially entered the equation.
And if an airline allowed such a person to board, they would actually be in violation of federal law. From a reply that Catherine Mateo received from Air Canada:
... Air Canada is bound by federal law and as such we must comply with the regulations that if a passenger's face or gender does not match the government-issued photo identification, we are prohibited from carrying that passenger. Again, if you have a concern regarding this, we respectfully ask that you pursue this with Transport Canada....
Canada's Parliament passed human rights legislation to include transsexual and transgender Canadians, but it died at the election call. An identical bill has been reintroduced into Parliament and could be coming up for second reading in 1-2 months (people have been indicating support to their member of Parliament, right?). This change comes as trans issues are becoming better known to the federal government and in mainstream society.
The nation has been under pressure from the U.S. government to tighten screening and restrictions on Canadian travellers, including the introduction of full-body scanners, which also single out transsexual and transgender people for special scrutiny. In September 2003, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued the first of several warnings that potential Al Qaeda terrorists might be changing tactics to avoid scrutiny, such as departing from airports in Canada and Mexico, or dressing as women. Even before the regulation change, trans people -- including McCreath -- have experienced difficulty travelling to the U.S. and internationally, although not all of that has been at the hands of specifically Canadian border security or travel screening.
Some have speculated that the stress on appearance was also intended to target women who wear the niqab and hijab, making such an assessment impossible, and potentially also banning Muslim women who adhere to this tradition from boarding a plane. Traditional coverings of this sort have already been flashpoints of controversy regarding citizenship ceremonies and court testimonies. Although one of the motivations for these bans is supposed to be the status of women, punitive legislation targeting full face and body coverings have a horrible tendency to target women, rather than provide any viable solutions informed by them.
Anyone wishing to do so is welcome to contact the Minister. Copy to your member of Parliament as well, and remember to keep it civil but clear that the amended wording of the Aeronautics Act is a serious concern:
Hon. Denis Lebel, Ministre des Transports | Minister of Transport
Courriel | E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Phone: 613-996-6236 Fax: 613-996-6252
Adresse postale (sans timbre) | Mailing Address (postage free) : Hon. Denis Lebel, Chambre des communes/House of Commons, Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Courriel | Email: Questions@tc.gc.ca
Sans frais | Toll Free: 1-866-995-9737
Adresse postale | Mailing Address: Transport Canada, 330 rue Sparks Street, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0N5
h/t Matt McLauchlin for some of this info.
Thank you for reading this story...
More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all. But media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our only supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help.
If everyone who visits rabble and likes it chipped in a couple of dollars per month, our future would be much more secure and we could do much more: like the things our readers tell us they want to see more of: more staff reporters and more work to complete the upgrade of our website.
We’re asking if you could make a donation, right now, to set rabble on solid footing in 2017.