[English]

I think this section, which was introduced in August 2011, is unnecessary, it's backward, and it's discriminatory. That's why I have a motion in front of you, Mr. Chair.

A lot of people have NEXUS cards now. I happen to have one, and it's retinal: the camera just looks at my eyes. They don't care what my gender identity is. As long as the eye they look at matches, and as long as they can say, “This is the right person”, I go through, if I'm going to the States. Technology is increasingly becoming so much more advanced that we will probably be beyond photo IDs, anyway.

Mr. Chair, some of us fly every week, and all we need to have is a driver's licence or an OHIP card that shows who we are. As long as my face looks identical, or close to identical, to the photo on the driver's licence, whether I'm male or female does not really make much of a difference, because I look like the person in the photo. Whether I'm wearing lipstick, whether I'm wearing glasses that day or not, or whether I have short hair or long hair—none of this matters as long as I look like that person in the photo; my gender really is secondary, and it doesn't compromise security.

That the Government repeals Section 5.2(1)(c) of the Identity Screening Regulations under the Aeronautics Act which were introduced in August 2011 and which states that “An air carrier shall not transport a passenger: (c) if the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents;” as this is a severe discrimination against transgender and transsexual Canadians and a violation of their fundamental right, the freedom of movement, and that this motion be reported back to the House.

[Translation]

This is not really a matter of security; this is a violation of fundamental rights. Therefore, I invite everyone to vote in favour of this motion.

Mr. Chair, the Liberal Party of Canada supports this motion. This is clearly a case of discrimination. Transgender and transsexual Canadians are being denied a fundamental right, the freedom of movement. My colleague Justin Trudeau was right to ask the question in the House.

[English]

: Thank you very much. I can say that it's a pleasure to appear at the transport committee instead of the public safety committee. Thank you very much. I can say that it's a pleasure to appear at the transport committee instead of the public safety committee.

This matter came forward—and as well as my colleague, Dany Morin, I raised a question in the House—when we were contacted by members of the transgender community who were very concerned, some of whom are afraid to make travel plans for fear of being denied boarding by this regulation.

It's quite clear that other countries—Australia in particular—manage air security just fine without such a provision. In fact, in Australia, their passports, which are the main piece of ID that most people use there, have male, female, and indeterminate categories on the passport, so people can have a designation of neither male nor female. It does not in any way affect the security of air travel internationally or in Australia.

I know that some have argued that international regulations require this. There is no such requirement. The requirement is simply that we identify people. I think my colleague, Ms. Chow, has identified the basic issue, and that is facial recognition.

For transgendered people, it's very difficult to get a change in their identity documents in terms of gender. Some people choose not to have surgery and to live their lives in the gender they feel they were born in, without any physical alterations. Under the current identity documents, they cannot get changes, and therefore they would never be able to do so.

Some have talked about the ability to get a letter from a doctor—as an exception—but in the case of a non-operative transgendered person, there is no doctor who would provide any kind of letter. Plus, most doctors charge about $100 or more for letters like that, and of course one of the largest problems that transgendered Canadians have is with employment: most transgendered people in Canada live very close to, if not below, the poverty line. They sometimes need to travel for family reasons, but it's not something they do very often. It's very difficult for them to get letters, to pay for letters, and to make these kinds of arrangements.

In addition to that, there is the issue of privacy, which many transgendered people feel quite strongly about, in that other people would not be questioned or challenged on grounds of gender. Therefore, this exposes them to the prejudice against transgendered people, which is very prevalent in our society. With this regulation in place, their worry is that at security screening points, at the gates, there may be people who are not familiar with the issues that transgendered people face and it may become quite difficult for them.

For all those reasons, we believe this regulation is both unnecessary and discriminatory. We have a right to mobility in Canada, which is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Transgendered people are as entitled to those protections as any other Canadian. I would encourage this committee to pass this resolution and send it back to the House so that we can correct what I see as simply an error, an excessive regulation that is not really needed for air safety and causes a violation of the rights of and discrimination against transgendered people.