Double Opt Out in Canada?
 

Does anyone know the consequences, if any, of refusing both the MMW and the patdown/frisk in Canada? Are there any official CATSA rules about it? Has anyone ever tried it? If the Canadian police are called are the rules any different for a foreigner? Are you allowed to videotape Canadian police? Luckily I wouldn't have to worry about the legality of showing ID since Canada doesn't have a no-fly list. In the US a $10,000 fine and arrest are just some of the possible repercussions. How about in Canada? If it is unknown and no one has ever tried it then maybe it is up to me to find out. My plan would be to take the bus to YUL and if I get selected for the MMW to try to flee the checkpoint and then flee the country by bus, making my escape. Hehe. Actually I really would like to see what the consequences actually are. Somehow I imagine them being less draconian than in the US. All I want is to be allowed to choose not to fly rather than be strip searched or molested. Is that really asking so much?

Potential advantages of a Canadian double opt out:

1. No worries about getting a space on the dreaded no-fly list.
2. No $10,000 fine. Even if there is a fine it is doubtful they could successfully extradite me to collect it.
3. Maybe less risk of arrest. Although this is uncertain. Based on my own experiences living in Canada about 10 years ago I would suspect that the Canadian police are less likely to be out of control, corrupt, thugs, who just want to break heads and prove to themselves and the world how powerful they are. I am hoping that the chance of encountering police like the ones Phil encountered at ABQ might be less.

Disadvantages:

1. I probably can't afford to stay in Montreal long enough to reschedule a another departure at the same fare to try to make it through the gauntlet again. I do miss the city (where I used to live), and would be happy to stay a few days, but much longer than that is too expensive.

2. Less information about procedures/practices. For instance in the US it seems that I can expect something like a 10-20% chance of getting selected for the NoS. In Canada I have no idea what the chances are of being selected. Maybe it's even higher. Although in Canada the selections are genuinely random, right?

3. There are two nearby airports which don't yet have NoS at all. I could fly out of those and probably have a much greater chance of being able to actually fly that day, but the consequences of being stopped via a secondary inspection refusal might be much more serious than it would be in Canada ($10k, No-fly list, arrest, trumped up charges, violent/dangerous, out of control LEOs etc).

You really need to do your homework. Canada has had a no-fly list since June of 2007 and it is now connected to the U.S. no-fly list, as well.

If you refuse the MMW and a patdown, you will not fly. And, since you would have already passed through the U. S. Customs preclearance at YUL, I would not want to predict the results of you trying to bolt the area.

As far as the rest of your questions, I have some ideas but no solid proof. So, why not go for it and let us know how it works out for you...

You won't fly. That is all. You say you will bit
go forth with the secondary screening and you will be told you hbe that option but you will not fly that day.

Pretty simple.

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that.
Of course I do realize that. Same as the US. I can only assume that they cannot physically compel me to submit to the patdown. The question is what will they do? Has not a single Canadian said something along the lines of "If you touch my junk I will have you arrested"?

Sorry I didn't make it clear. I would be flying to Asia on a one way ticket. Surely customs pre-clearance would not be an issue, although it may be on the way back. Still it would be interesting to see what happened. Even if the checkpoint is manned by actual TSOs for US bound flights I would still be physically within the jurisdiction of Canada, no? Surely Canadian laws or regulations would apply. Not American ones. As far as bolting the area I didn't mean to imply that I would actually run or anything. I just mean leave with some haste unless explicitly forbidden and detained by CATSA. Does CATSA have detention powers? If not then I suppose I would just briskly walk away until accosted by some Canadian mounties on horseback who might choose to take me into custody.
I'd be interested to hear them nevertheless. Especially if you are Canadian.

I'll try to post the results of my experiment from my jail cell in Montreal. At least my fellow inmates will speak French. I can always pretend that I am in a French-Canadian version of The Prophet.

You do understand that as soon as I get selected for the NoS I don't want to fly, right? I just want to leave. So are you saying that there is no penalty for the double opt out then? No fine? No detention or interrogation? No jail time? I won't get put on the Canadian no-fly list or get beat up by a Canadian cop for being a suspected terrorist? It must be nice to live in a free country.

In Canada you are required to present picture ID at the gate. If you are flying out of country the airline can demand to see a passport at check in as they are responsible for ensuring that they do not carry inadmissible passengers.
You do not need to show your id to the screener.
You may leave the screening process at any time if you choose not to fly that day.
In matters with the police foreigners have the same legal protections as any citizen of Canada.If you are arrested you must also be advised that you have the right to contact your consulate as part of the VCCR.
Police may be filmed as they are public servants performing their job in a public area.

At any point, you are free to leave the check point. You may be asked questions as to why, but not interrogated, no jail time and no fine.

Although I believe that you will NOT receive a refund from the airline.

Thanks so much for this info.

I wouldn't necessarily be looking for a refund. If I wanted to try my luck again in a few weeks I would just change the date on my ticket. Air Canada charges $150 for that. Other airlines like Cathay Pacific, Korean Airlines, or Japan Airlines only charge $100. I'd take the bus back to Boston and just try again on the new date. Or, depending on the airline I might be able to change the departure city to one in the US and try my luck here, along with the greater risks/penalties that go along with the US DOO. Same reissue/change fee for that I think. Although the fare itself could of course be very different. Most American carriers now charge $250, which is prohibitive, but I am not planning to fly with them. It kind of amazes me that anyone is getting refunds for not making it through security. I don't really blame the airline for the TSA or CATSA idiocy anyway. Of course I guess it couldn't hurt to at least ask for a fee waiver due to the circumstances (where I want to fly, just without getting photographed naked or felt up).

Note also that reports have the CATSA opt-out patdown as being the "old-style" patdown - especially for flights not bound for the U.S. YUL tends to have a bit more attitude than screeners at most Canadian aiports but they're generally a million times better. You shouldn't have any problems, even if pulled for the scope as long as you were ok with the old patdown. As many posters have mentioned if you choose not to fly you can walk away at any time without penalty.

1. NoS is not used as primary.

2. Randomizer mat is used.

3. Should you be selected for secondary screening, note that Canada uses MMW (for me no difference, I don't go through either). However, you can choose either NoS or patdown (it's not really an opt out). Signage is everywhere and very clearly states that it is an option. Per Transport Canada's site: "Passengers selected for a secondary search can always choose between the full-body scanner, if available, and a physical search." Note that the scanner is an option "if available", not the other way around.

4. It is not the same "patdown" that is used in the US. It is pretty much the old style patdown with the waistband check (but rarely from what I have experienced). The big differences: it is not as invasive as in the US, it is done very professionally, the agents are generally very polite (YUL can be a being the exception at times but that exception is still 100 times better than in the US), same sex agents are there or come quickly and the secondary itself is pretty quick.

5. Why on earth would you "flee"? You have the option of leaving screening and just not flying. You don't need to "flee" in order to avoid a fine.

6. Canada and the US share information. Canada is not the US. It uses it's own procedures. It has, however, for US bound flights implemented some of the TSA's inane procedures at their request just like many other countries.

I think you need to do some research before you assume that another country's screeners will treat you like the TSA does, especially when you aren't even flying to the US. This is a good place to start: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/air-lmenu.htm

1. MMW IS primary if you are "randomly" picked for additional screening. Of course, one can opt out and then get a pat down.

2. Not all airports are using the randomizer mat. YYC (at gate A and going to U.S.) no longer uses the mat -- they scan the boarding pass and apparently it tells them whether or not the passenger gets additional screening. I seriously have my doubts about this method because I have been picked every, single time. That, in my mind, is not a random occurrence.

3. As mentioned earlier, with secondary screening, you definitely have to opt out if you do not want to go through the MMW.

4. I just had the new pat down on February 1st (after opting out) and it is much more intrusive than the old one. Waistband is checked. Breasts are now thoroughly checked with the palm, not the back of the hand. The hand runs up each leg until it meets resistance. The whole body (front and back) receives a pat down and the bottom of the feet are also checked. How is this not invasive?

1. I should have been more clear in that it is not used as primary unless you are selected. It is used as secondary if you alarm.
2. Fair enough, there are some differences. In your case, might you be on the "Passenger Protect" list or have a name similar to someone who is? I would look into it.
3. I've never had to opt out. Unless you call stating that you choose the patdown an opt out. Have always had both options given and selected the patdown but in fairness, I've not been selected for secondary very often flying from home (Canada).
4. Do you usually fly out of YYC? The reason I ask is that there have been numerous complaints out of Calgary including the senior citizen back in Oct and another incident with a 4 year old girl. I usually fly out of YOW or YYZ and have never had the patdown done as described above, even as recently as last month. I have had the waistband checked, back, arms, legs (not to resistance) but never palms on breasts. I agree that what you describe above is invasive. I wonder if the screeners in Calgary are watching too many cop shows.

I didn't mean actually running away. I just meant flee as in escape. I was thinking in terms of just briskly walking away from the checkpoint. Of course due to the answers of people like you I see that even that is not necessary.

Well this is my research. I dont know of a better place to find this sort of information, especially in a way that is up to date, reliable, and reflects the actual reality of the situation (as opposed to propaganda like on the TSA website). Thanks for the link. I will definitely check it out.

Until recently I was thinking along the lines that CATSA was much, much better than the TSA. That there was no comparison at all, but some recent posts had me rethinking that. And I didn't know until recently that CATSA also stuck their hands in your pants to do a "waistband" search. I haven't flown to Canada myself for a long time so all I can go by are traveler reports and US based travel tends to dominate on this forum. So I couldn't find much info on the subject.

As far as the scanners go I don't personally have any safety concerns. It's strictly a privacy issue. If I was departing from an airport with an ATR system I would probably go through even an xray scanner if I thought it would reduce my chances of getting groped.

I have read contradictory statements about the invasiveness of the CATSA patdowns. Since I doubt I could get the CATSO to agree in advance not to touch my genitals or butt crack or stick his fingers down my pants (the fact that the US TSOs actually pull out the front of your pants and peek down is beyond offensive). I think the sheer horror of TSA's insane procedures may have actually over-sensitized me to the whole thing so that even the slightest transgression will prevent me from flying.

If necessary I am prepared to take a train/bus all the way down to Mexico and fly out of Mexico City, but that would mean 3 days of overland travel. If only I could be sure that I would not be fined or prosecuted or no-fly listed for leaving the checkpoint I could at least attempt to fly out of BOS or MHT before resorting to departures from neighboring countries. I'm still considering those options. With this new information I can make a much more informed decision. It looks like YUL is actually a pretty good option for me. It's an interesting compromise between the certainty of Mexico City and the uncertainty and risk of my local airports. With Canada, while there maybe no guarantee that I will be able to actually make my flight, at least I do have a guarantee that I won't be arrested or fined.

It seems there are a couple of airports that are worse than others. I'm going to break tradition and use city names instead. Much like any country, each city in Canada has a different "culture". Calgary has had numerous incidents of what one might call "abuse" of overzealous screeners. Montreal has attitude but is still professional. Toronto is larger, loud and busy. You'll get fewer "Canadian" niceties there but they are still professional. Ottawa is fairly innocuous. London is much the same. I can't speak for Vancouver or any others at this time as I've not flown out of any others in years.

I can understand how flying in the US, or even hearing what's going on, would make you especially sensitive or nervous about the any CP experience. Best of luck in whatever decision you make and hopefully your trip is a good one.

I am not on the Passenger Protect list nor have I ever been. In fact, I just got a Nexus card in hopes that it will stop the nonsense.

Yes, I know all about the problems at YYC -- only too well, I might add. I am truly hoping that their attitude changes after all of the investigations are completed.

You've got me really curious now as to why you get caught up each time then, especially since you were approved for Nexus. I really hope that helps and that you're no longer selected for secondary.

That's why I asked if it was specifically only at YYC. It would certainly help narrow down the problem (ie: something that causes you to be selected for secondary at all Canadian airports or jack***es in Calgary playing wannabe cop). I too am looking forward to the outcome of the investigations.

Hopefully, with Nexus, your CP experience will become a lot less eventful.

CATSA screeners are forbidden by law from asking to see ID. I've never encountered a Canadian BDO so I don't know about them but I'm hoping the same applies.

The other thing I'd say is that in my experience (flying out of and watching others pass through Canadian screening) the randomizer mat yields very few positives--in other words, gojirasan, if you are doing this to avoid the scans you should be very happy with the results, but if you're doing it for the express purpose of opting out, you may be rescheduling your ticket pretty often. Your first post made it look like you wanted to opt out to make a point, but in your subsequent posts it appears that you just want to fly free from harassment, so I'm not clear what your ultimate goal is.

I can only speak for YYZ, but you are free to leave the security and pre-clearance area without penalty, and without having to re-enter through Canadian Customs/Immigration. The airline will need to find your bag and bring it to you at the counter, which they may or may not be very unhappy about doing (translation: long delay).

Result!!

No. It has nothing to do with making a point. I do just want to fly without being scoped or groped. Since I'm not even Canadian that wouldn't make much sense anyway. I'll let them handle their own political protests. Maybe you got that impression because I had no idea what to expect from the Canadian authorities in response to my retreat from the checkpoint. In the US you would have some expectation of ending up handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser. I just wanted to do my best to defend my (Canadian) rights if the same were to happen in Canada. Since police tend to lie, a video camera is essential if you think that you will need to defend yourself in court. In Canada it looks like I won't have to worry about maintaining video evidence to support my case or whether surrendering my ID will get me put on a no-fly list. None of the insane police state issues that are of so much concern here south of the border.

I'm not even sure what point there is to be made? That the TSA or CATSA is unjust? That police will lie and arrest you on trumped up charges? Phil Mocek already made that point and nothing seems to have changed. Well except that he has paved the way for others in similar situations to have at least some idea of what to expect.

I guess the latter is the only thing that my hypothetical scenario would have accomplished. Showing other Americans who considered traveling overland to Canada and departing out of there to entirely avoid the scope and grope whether the strategy is viable or will land you in jail. From the feedback I have received in this thread it seems clear that all of that is irrelevant. Leaving the checkpoint in Canada seems to be both legal and allowed by CATSA. So I wouldn't anticipate any problems in that regard. I really appreciate all of your answers. It is amazing how living in a police state makes you appreciate the freedoms in other countries so much more.

They do have the mandate to do identity screening now in limited circumstances. See this post.

On a related matter (nothing to do with you, Wally Bird), am I the only one who believes that thanks to a growing handful of people, this forum is getting nuttier by the minute?

^^ Agreed!

C'mon. Admit it. This place was boring before we crazies arrived. We've brightened up your forum. You're very lucky we're here. And remember that it was the TSA that drove us insane by taking away our freedom to travel. Some creatures just can't handle captivity. We go nuts pacing in our cages.

I am concerned about the important message being lost amongst the noise. I know that I used to overlook this forum and would most likely do so now if I hadn't been here for quite some time in the past. I have seen the response people have had and I myself had similar responses in past.

I know that a few people here have not had the best CATSA experiences, but many of us generally have unremarkable ones. I too find the YYC CATSA screeners I encountered over the past year a little different than those at other major Canadian airports, and don't think that the needs to be as much concern generally as when one flies from a US airport.

I respect your opinion greatly but my experiences have been very different from yours and from many others who fly in Canada. It is interesting that, when I travel to the U.S., I never have any hassles with the TSA nor have I ever had a secondary screening. And, I am talking about a wide variety of airports here. But Canada is a different story.

I think that one important difference between people in the two countries is that Canadians are much more hesitant to make waves and report incidents to CATSA or even the press. However, that is all changing and especially since those two incidents in January at YYC. More and more people are becoming disgusted with the way they are treated at airports and I could not be happier about this turn of events.

http://bit.ly/gq45Mv

Personally, I don't think an important message has been missed in this thread. I think people need to know that screening in Canada is not a pushover and that our rights at the airport are being taken away here, too. In my mind, THAT is the important message.

To the OP - Canada's system is not really one to rail against, but one the US should copy. I wish they would dump their naked machines, but the pat down is done far more efficiently and respectfully. The use of 100% contract screening means CATSA doesn't play politics in this. They always have someone to blame and can do the customer service job much more progressively.

1. The naked machine is not primary. First, not all people who are randomized to the secondary line are directed through the MMW. In my two directs to that lane, I've took a pat down once and the second one I didn't even have my bags opened. Second, you are told, directly, if you are selected that you are absolutely allowed to choose a pat down.

2) Interesting, and a bit surprising. BP scans are supposed to be to check line timing, because of all the complaints CATSA has received about how slow their lines are. Interesting to see this shift. I would write a complaint.

3) You are told, directly, that you have the option of the MMW or a pat down. If you aren't told this, very clearly, you should file a complaint.

4) I've had both pat downs. The Canadian one is similar to the TSA one, if the TSA one follows SOP. If you feel it is getting too intrusive, file a complaint.

A big issue is that there are different contractors that do the security, so different training regimes.

The positive thing about Canada is that they have a very strong customer complaint team in place at CATSA that will go the extra mile. I think the main reason is because they have the political high ground, as all screening clerks are contract.

Honestly, and I like you, but someone in your position cannot really point and comment. When you are part of a police apparatus, commenting on those who are railing against abuses is a dicey situation.

That said, I agree that this specific OP is being completely unreasonable.

You mean because I am not willing to get my balls rubbed by some metrosexual thug getting his jollies from his secret homosexual fantasies and his drive to humiliate anyone he can? Hey, if you're into that kind of thing don't let me stop you, but I prefer to have sex with women rather than male TSA or CATSA screeners. And if my choice is between getting sexually molested or not flying at all, well that aint no choice at all. No trip is worth that.

I also have to wonder about people who don't mind having their genitals rubbed by same sex strangers. Maybe they are secretly homo or bi and don't realize it. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It just might explain some of the differences between those of us who are totally repulsed by the idea and see it as an unspeakable violation and the ones who think that we refuseniks are babies or prudes. Maybe it has more to do with sexual orientation than political orientation. I'm just speculating of course.

I'm not Canadian. I don't see it as my place to try to change whatever systems they have in place. If Canadians feel that the TSA ball grabbing system is smart and effective then who am I to say they shouldn't copy us, but I'm not going to passively sit by and let some guy feel me up. That just isn't going to happen. Whatever happens after my violation is irrelevant. I don't even care whether the guy goes to jail or not. What I care about is not getting violated in the first place. This means that if I take the risk of actually starting with the patdown procedure, the second that the guy touches my balls I am going to be physically batting his hand away even if it means going to prison on assault charges. I think we all have certain responsibilities to at least try to defend our persons against those who would harm us. However I think it would be smarter for me to simply prevent even the possibility of that scenario by planning ahead. Either by wearing an athletic cup so all he ends up feeling is the cup instead of my balls/dick or just leaving the checkpoint entirely as soon as I am selected. As the TSA would say, "out of an abundance of caution".

The most efficient and respectful patdown is the one that doesn't happen at all. As the US falls down the drain into the stinky sewer of a police state it seems like the Canadian government has this idea that it's some kind of race and that they should dive down after us. How about some Canadian politicians being smart for once and whatever they see the US do, they just do exactly the opposite?

I didn't mean this thread in particular. I was responding to

I have seen over the past 15 months or so the participation change on this forum as well as some very different shifts in the general tone and content. Many of us do have a unified concern about screening, but that message runs the risk of being overshadowed by hyperbole or name calling.

We have also lost the active participation of several TSOs over the past year (and I know that there were others before then). While I may not always agree with the content and the style of how some of them post, their 'insider information' has been helpful to many of us.

I used to think that that the TS&S forum was populated by tinfoil hat wearing posters. Then I spent some time doing research and found factual information here or links to that information. But if I had started reading in January 2011 instead of in January 2010 I may not have felt the same way.

Again, I am just concerned that the important message may be lost in the noise on this forum, and that would be a shame.

Maybe that follows the general trend of people waking up to what's happening around us. Over the past 15 months or so, the participation in TSA's lawless behavior at airports has changed, too.

It's getting harder for them to defend their actions. They weren't looking at us naked, lifting our breasts, and feeling our scrotums back then. They weren't getting caught dragging people off train platforms inside to be searched before exiting.

We have also lost the active participation of multiple of TSA apologists.

To the uninformed, all of us who resist DHS encroachment on our freedom look like tinfoil hatters.

That's a reasonable concern. Maybe TS&S would benefit from having a well-written FAQ stickied.

Better that we have people show up to vent their frustrations, then take a look around, settle down, and start working on a solution, than to go back to the general lack of awareness that existed a couple years ago. Harness that new energy.

Shouldn't that be tinfoil underwearers ?This is impinging on a subject we are not permitted to discuss.

The noise has increased recently, likely for the reasons you give. However it is not necessary to read every thread and every post and there is always the ignore list.

Sorry if my occasional (regular ?) vituperation upsets anyone. It's quite likely to get worse though ;) .

I like the term refusenik myself to describe those of us who refuse to submit to the scope or the grope.

What kind of subject of discussion would you define as noise? Surely a thread like this one that requests specific information about procedures at CATSA checkpoints is *very* well within the intent of this forum: Travel Safety/Security. I haven't noticed a great many off topic threads myself. So I am genuinely curious what some of you are referring to. Perhaps the more philosophical musings? Like the discussion of natural rights that we were having in another thread? Perhaps that is drifting a bit off topic, but I still think it is relevant since it gets into why some of us object to the illegal searches. If you don't find a thread interesting no one is forcing anyone to read it. I certainly don't read every thread. Remember that one man's noise is another man's music.

Excessive noise? Filter. Can't? Enforce meaningful subjects and on-topic discussions.
 

When there's a problem with signal-to-noise ratio, the first thing that should be done is to facilitate filtration by enforcing "use a meaningful subject (thread title)" and "keep on topic" rules. I don't see that happening, so I assume that those with the ability and authority to do something about such a problem do not find such a problem to exist.

I tend to overlook posts which advocate violence or even murder. I also tend to overlook posts (on any side of the issue) which contain a significant amount of name-calling.

I am an advocate of peaceful resistance, and I would like to think that one can drive change without resorting to violence or significant name-calling. I also know that there are readers who are trying to gather information and who have been turned off by such posts. Two friends of mine who I consider intelligent and open to changing their viewpoints have confirmed to me that they tend to do the same when they see such posts. Neither feels as strongly as I do about airport screening (and both admittedly are infrequent flyers who have not yet experienced some of the things we have experienced)

One of the strongest voice on this forum uses facts and humour to get her point across and educate readers who don't understand the 'big deal' about the scanners. I know that she has managed to sway opinions, and has done so without advocating violence or using excessive name-calling.

In my opinion, the strong emotions we tend to see here may actually work against the argument and may drive away readers. Not everyone has the time to wade through a large number of threads looking for basic information. That is also why I believe that the single most valuable post (not thread, but updated post) on this forum is the sticky about the scanner locations at various airports. The single most valuable signature (to me) is the one which lists the various channels to file a report.

I cannot speak for yyzvoyageur, but the question they posed did resonate with me.

I am not saying that people are wrong, just that I don't always agree with everything that is voiced here, and I do choose to filter out what and how much I read here now.

I think those are violations of FT rules. You probably can help prevent such posts from being seen by notifying moderators of them. To do so, click the little warning triangle icon to the left of a post, under author information.

I despair
 

[QUOTE]What an absolute load of s**t!! you have a major problem and are obviously a bigoted individual. Can't you comprehend that these people are simply doing a job. They have to do it in the way stipulated by their employers or they face being dismissed - i.e. no job, no money!

It has absolutely nothing to do with their sexuality but simply about them doing their job properly.

I travel internationally 3-4 times a month for work and generally have nothing bad to say about the security people I've encountered - even in the US and Canada, my biggest frustration is idiot passengers at security who are either too lazy or stupid to understand what they can and can't take through security hence delaying everyone.

It's your choice, either live with it or don't fly, but don't criticise people who in in the vast majority are only trying to do a job to the best of their ability to earn a living.

demand publication of the rules; avoid using the Neuremberg Defense
 

That's not necessarily stupidity or laziness. TSA refuse to publish the rules passengers are required to follow. Some people do a better job of guessing what some particular airport security guard will and will not allow than others do. If you're going to complain about this, please complain to the TSA.

Not flying is not guaranteed to avoid TSA's lawless behavior. They're expanding to train stations and have plans to x-ray cars and pedestrians.

Why shouldn't we criticize them? It's their choice: Either live with criticism or don't take a job with a government agency that has its employees engage in unconstitutional behavior. If the majority of people said, "No, I'm not going to lift people's breasts and feel their scrotums when they refuse to let me look under their clothing with a strip-search machine," and "No, I will not help you lock people down after you blacklist them; go talk to a judge if you have good reason for this," then this would not be happening. It's that simple. Those who participate allow it to happen. Damned straight, we'll criticize.

No. You are being unreasonable because CATSA is a different agency, with different (far higher) standards for professionalism and protecting passenger privacy. As I stated to you before, the CATSA pat down is much different in execution from the wanna-be cops that work at the TSA do. I did not have my genitals touched at all and if I did, I would have both emailed and called CATSA's complaint department immediately, not to mention the Peel Regional Police (at YYZ). And the result would have been the investigation and potential arrest of the Garda clerk.

Incidentally, pat downs did exist before the TSA as well.

Again, have you even paid attention? The Canadians don't do things the same as the TSA does. Their new LAG rules are much better (if a partially filled over 100 ml container contains obviously less than 100 ml, you can go through), they are pro-active about telling you your options on secondary, they use the MMW/Frisk option as a secondary to secondary and they don't stand for unprofessional/illegal behavior during the frisk.

CATSA didn't have to buy the MMW scanners in the first place. The vast majority of countries in the world get by just fine without them and are no less safe. While I *do* appreciate the greater travel freedom and more civilized CATSA screeners north of the border, there is a lot of room for improvement. Just look at pretty much any country in the world other than the US or UK for an excellent model of how to conduct airport security. Canada is not one of the better examples of airlines security in the world. It is one of the worst. It is only something to be proud of when compared to the most repressive system in the world just south of the border. Considering how badly Canadians are treated both at TSA checkpoints and at CBP checkpoints one might think that they would want to distance themselves as much as possible from our police state, no-right-to-our-own-bodies kind of system. When CATSA removes every naked body imager from their airports then I might start to be impressed, but not before.

As far as not getting your genitals touched during a patdown, fair enough. That has been your experience, but there are some traveler reports on this forum which seem to show otherwise. These contradictory reports make it seem like CATSA patdowns are inconsistent in that regard. After I have had some experiences with CATSA myself I can have my own view on the subject. Until then I don't think it is fair to consider me or my expectations unreasonable just because I haven't had any personal experiences with CATSA and have read contradictory reports about the patdowns on flyertalk.

Don't get me wrong. Most of what I have read seems to indicate that CATSOs are generally much farther up the evolutionary ladder than TSOs and that the whole security system is far superior to the one in the US, but that isn't saying much. The US obviously has the worst airport security system in the whole world.

1) If flying to the U.S. (which is what I originally assumed before the OP said that he was not flying back there...) , the MMW IS primary when picked for a secondary screening. Yes, a person can opt out and get a pat down but it IS the primary for that type of screening. Also, as I understand it, the MMW is used at other screening points to resolve WTMD issues, too.

2) YYC used to have the "randomizer" mat and recently changed to the scanner. Why, I do not know. But, either way, I was/am picked for a secondary about 95% of the time. Believe me, I DO have a 4" binder full of complaint letters written to CATSA, members of Parliament, and other government officials. I continue to complain and absolutely refuse to be intimidated by this organization.

You are incorrect. If it was primary, everyone would be sent through. Only about every 1 out of every 3-4 are given the MMW/Pat down option. And its not an opt-out, its an actual choice that is thoroughly explained.

As far as resolving WTMD issues, you are incorrect. A male and a female clerk with wands wait at the other side of the WTMD to resolve WTMD issues.

Check your PM