Those Calle Johanssons
Lighting up our lives
Those Calle Johanssons
They were the stars in the sky :)

Who is gonna be, who will be the first to kiss?
Under those Calle Johanssons

Haha Brilliant!

Dammit Moffat - now that song is stuck in my head!

http://economics.about.com
Thanks... Check out yesterday's game thread... I even messed up Mike Wilner's head with it! :)

Terry Fox.

http://mothershipconnection.blogspot.com/
Nothing quite puts a hop in your step first thing in the morning than lyrics to the second-best song ever written with supermarkets as the central theme.

Think I may go shoeless today.

http://economics.about.com
Nothing quite puts a hop in your step first thing in the morning than lyrics to the second-best song ever written with supermarkets as the central theme.

Well, I did already quote the first-best song.

Very nice. Didn't think anyone would get this one, as I believe it's the first song I've quoted that wasn't released as a single. Not 100% sure about that, though.

Anyhow, it's a far too catchy tune that I listen to way too much.

600,000+

New milestone!

Like you can pick one 'greatest Canadian'.

Top 10, in no specific order (itself cut down from my initial list of about 25):

1) Robert Baldwin and Louis LaFontaine, jointly, for founding democracy in Canada
2) Tommy Douglas, for our social security network
3) Marshall McLuhan, edging out Nothrup Frye as probably our greatest intellectual
4) Pierre Trudeau, for the Consitution, among other things (some of which were mistakes, but none of which our coutry would be what it is without)
5) Margaret Atwood, our greatest author
6) The scientist of your choosing. I'm not equippped to assess the most important scientific contribution of Canada.
7) What's-his-face who invented insulin, for saving lives.
8) Elijah Harper, for forcefully beginning the political integration of our most oppressed people
9) Nellie McClung. I seem favour people who lead battles for justice.
10) Wilifred Laurier, for being the finest articulator of why, exactly, this country ought to exist

INCREDIBLY HONOURABLE MENTION: Romeo Dallaire

CONTROVERSIAL FIGURES I THOUGHT LONG ABOUT: Louis Riel, Jean-Paul Riopelle, Rene Levesque, Tecumseh.

PEOPLE DROPPED BECUASE THIER CONTRIBUTIONS, WHILE AWESOME, LACKED BROADER 'GOOD': Frank Gehry, Wayne Gretzky, Glenn Gould

There are a lot of deserving choices for Greatest Canadian. I'm going to enjoy seeing who the nominees, and the eventual winner is, even if I'll likely disagree with it.

A thing that irritates me is how CBC only lets you nominate one person, instead of 10. Picking one person is a lot tougher than picking 10.

Anyhow, when I think of the Greatest Canadian, my first instinct is to say Tommy Douglas. Canadians like to define themselves through universal healthcare and our social programs. Douglas was the man responsible for healthcare, as well as things like the pension plan.

Maybe we should begin by posting our lists of 10, as it seems like we're not honouring other great Canadians by posting just one.

http://economics.about.com
Pierre Trudeau? As being on the other side of the political spectrum, I can't think of a less deserving candidate. But that's what makes politics so much fun! :)

I'm leaning towards Sir Arthur Currie. The man saved literally hundreds of thousands of lives, and prevented World War I from going into 1919. Yet he seems to be virtually ignored as a Canadian historical figure. He did make the CBC list, though, which is a good sign.

Cheers,

Mike

http://bluejayscheerclub.com
I pick Wayne and Shuster.

I didn't read last night's game thread until this morning on the commute in. And all I have to say about the Calle Johansson song is this:

*shaking fist* Moffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat!!

I need to listen to Yellow Submarine or something to get that atrocity out of my head.

My take on greatest Canadians is a little different, my choice is the parent volenteer. I have just started doing this as my kids are 7 & 4 so I am not including myself but those who have been doing it for several years. I am involved with minor baseball and hockey, and this is just for example purposes, and it is essentially the same group of people putting forward their time to be directors and coaches. Without these people donating their time the kid's experiences would be diminished.
On a more somber and symbolic note, our war dead whom we honour on Nov 11 each year should also receive some consideration.

Getting picked off base, I think, is a far worse way of ending a game than GIDP.

Pierre Trudeau? As being on the other side of the political spectrum, I can't think of a less deserving candidate.

I know he's a contentious figure, and even as a strong admirer of his, I take issue with a lot of things he did. But how can 'Patriating the Constiution' not be among the few most significant acts of nation-building we've undertaken?

The document that provides the entire formal definition of our government and our rights is almost singlehandedly his creation. I think that deserves mention, even if you object to its content (in a few places, I do) and to how he pushed it through (again, in a few places, I do).

my choice is the parent volenteer.

That's a wonderful thought. But, due respect, while it's a very nice answer to some question, as is 'our war dead', it's not an answer to this question.

My take on greatest Canadians is a little different, my choice is the parent volenteer. I have just started doing this as my kids are 7 & 4 so I am not including myself but those who have been doing it for several years.

As someone who has a few years on you Dean, let me amend your recommendation to half the parent volunteers. I want to exclude the half that yell at referees and umpires and those that put winning over having fun. At the baseball level you will see the parent coach who keeps the weaker kids in the outfield all game, who do not give equal playing time when they should, and who make the kids run and run if they make errors in the game.

The Hockey Canada parent ad's are very good as hockey parents are worse than baseball parents.

http://economics.about.com
I know he's a contentious figure, and even as a strong admirer of his, I take issue with a lot of things he did. But how can 'Patriating the Constiution' not be among the few most significant acts of nation-building we've undertaken?

Singificant, yes. But was it a positive development? It defines the fact that the government can take away our fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights at their whim!

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or section 7 to 15 of this Charter.

"Greatest" is not really a Canadian concept. By reason of geography and cultural forces not really of our making, we have been inclined over our history to co-operate, and not to compete. We don't like talking about it though, except maybe over a beer.

If we're talking about "Most Influential", it might be Alexander Graham Bell.

Singificant, yes. But was it a positive development? It defines the fact that the government can take away our fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights at their whim!

You liked it better when there was no Charter? I mean, I don't like the notwithstanding clause either (remember, that wasn't Trudeau's idea, that was forced on him by the eight recalcitrant premiers) but that was exactly the situation before the Charter, except we had no Charter there.

Trudeau hated the notwithstanding clause, but recognized that a Charter with it was better - infinitely better - than no Charter at all. I wouldn't have picked you for someone so impractical. The NC has been used what, twice in almost 25 years? Both times to prop up relatively trifling interference.

88% of Canadians like the Charter and think it's good for Canada. It's infinitely more popular than universal health care, infinitely more popular than just about anything in this country. It's the fundamental political idea than draws us together, probably even more than that Canadian invention of universal free public education. It's accomplished this in 23 years. It is, to my mind, the fundamental political fabric of this country.

People don't like the notwithstanding clause, though. More than half of them think it should go (it's 54-41 in favour of junking it).

William Shatner - enough said!

Interesting list Andrew. A few comments:

5) Margaret Atwood, our greatest author
Yuck. I have a personal hatred for Margaret Atwood (for things she's said, not for her writing) that makes me hope that she's no where near the top 10 of the greatest Canadians.

Doesn't Terry Fox even make the honourable mention part? When I first heard about this contest he was my gut instinct pick, and I haven't heard anything that will change my mind. However, I'm surprised at the lack of love he's getting.

If we're talking about "Most Influential", it might be Alexander Graham Bell.
Interesting. I was in Scotland this summer, and we went to a museum that had small pieces on all of the Greatest Scottsmen. And Alexander Graham Bell was in it. I asked my Scottish friend about that, and she said that everyone knows that he invented the telephone. When I told her that in Canada we call him Canadian she gave me a funny look and told me that he's always been acknowledged as Scottish.

The Charter has resulted in the Supreme Court having far too much power and influence. The federal government is partially to blame as it keeps putting issue before the court rather than dealing with it. Democracy is not perfect but parliament must not be on the Supreme Court's leash. Because of the power of the Court the not withstanding clause has to stay.

Singificant, yes. But was it a positive development? It defines the fact that the government can take away our fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights at their whim!

Well, it's better than not having any fundamental freedoms or rights at all, which was the previous status quo.

Mackenzie King deserves some serious consideration in this discussion; he was the PM that finally got Britain to butt out of Canada's affairs.

On the artistic side of things, I think Robertson Davies supercedes Atwood as our greatest author. Maybe throw Stephen Leacock in there as well.

http://economics.about.com
You liked it better when there was no Charter?

I don't really remember a time when it didn't exist. I was very young when it was enacted. :)

In all seriousness, I'm pretty ambivalent about it. In theory, I think it's a good thing. I just dislike the idea that all the rights we've fought for can be taken away with one stroke of the pen. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't.

Cheers,

Mike

http://economics.about.com
Well, it's better than not having any fundamental freedoms or rights at all, which was the previous status quo.

Please. Constitutional law and defense of human rights in the courts existed before 1982.

Constitutional law and defense of human rights in the courts existed before 1982

Not in any concrete form. They were, in fact, exactly the sort of rights that could be "taken away with one stroke of the pen". Caselaw is all well and good, but the courts were still subordinate to parliament's whims. If parliament wanted to be nice and pass the Bill of Rights, great. If they want to repeal it the next day, oh well.

I still like the guy I mentioned in the other thread, John Humphrey.

Also I was surprised to see that Sam Steele got left off of CBC's list. You're allowed to vote twice, once online and once by phone. I may phone up to vote for Steele.

The Charter has resulted in the Supreme Court having far too much power and influence. The federal government is partially to blame as it keeps putting issue before the court rather than dealing with it.

But that's exactly it. The government is free - radically so thanks to Mike's bugaboo, the notwithstanding clause - to deal with these issues in any way it wishes.

If governments (and governments of ALL political stripes have resisted any meaningful innovation since the advent of the Charter) choose to abdicate their responsibility to legislate in the nation's interest it throws the responsibility on the Court, because the Court does not have the luxury of abdicating theirs.

It's so frustrating that I almost dislike the Charter myself, but at least it saves us from the worst excesses of the Mulroneys, Levesques, Raes and Kleins.

http://economics.about.com
Craigers: If the Charter had existed in the 1950s, would Duplessis been able to retain the Padlock Act?

Here's a brief list of Canadian scientists, engineers and mathematicians that deserve some mention or recognition:

Don Coxeter (mathematics)
Wilder Penfield (neurology)
Frederick Banting (medicine; discovered insulin)
Sir Sanford Fleming (engineer; created standard time)
John Polanyi (chemist)

Here are a few other resources to discover more great Canadian scientists:

Science.ca
Canadian Science and Engineering Hall of Fame
Canadian Medical Hall of Fame
National Archives of Canada: Heroes of Yore and Lore

Mike, I am a bit baffled by what you are asking.

Duplessis could certainly NOT have retained the Padlock Law under the Charter, because the reason the Padlock Law was struck down was because it was ultra vires (beyond the Constitutional powers) of the provincial government, because (to make a long and complicated story short) it dealt with criminal law, which was a federal jurisdiction.

In 1957, the federal government would have been free to retain the Padlock Law in Quebec, and nothing could have been done. Switzman v. Elbling and Attorney-General of Quebec was decided on federalism grounds only, and the nothwithstanding clause had nothing to do with federalism.

The greatest "human rights" victories in Canadian history before 1982 are often misinterpreted. Almost all of those victories are constitutional, but usually deal with the separation of powers.

I'm mostly with Moffatt. The Charter contains fine noble words, but little has really changed. As "potential security risks", Arab Canadians face many, but not all, of the same hurdles that Japanese Canadians did in the early 1940s. Attitudes are somewhat different now, but the perceived threat is also not the same.

Canadians like the Charter, I suspect, not because of what it actually is used for, but because it is a statement of ideals that they can accept. A kind of secular Bible, if you will.

Despite the latest Adbusters gaffe, I consider Kalle Lasn to be a great Canadian. His views on the poisoning effect of our media culture and Adbusters' attempts to get people to second guess the world in which they live are incredibly important.

When discussing greatness, I'll always take the visionary. Kalle Lasn's ideas and Adbusters' work puts better known people like Naomi Klein to shame.

And Mike's question about the Padlock Law just jogged my memory of who I should nominate, and I did.

I'm going for Frank Scott.

I also think Clifford Sifton deserves a lot of support, as do Joseph Howe and Bill Stephenson.

The Charter has resulted in the Supreme Court having far too much power and influence. The federal government is partially to blame as it keeps putting issue before the court rather than dealing with it. Democracy is not perfect but parliament must not be on the Supreme Court's leash. Because of the power of the Court the not withstanding clause has to stay.

I couldn't agree more. It is all about balance. If (and this may not be an if) the SCC (which is not accountable to anyone) makes an obscene decision re: the charter, the democratically elected portion of the government should be able to overrule it. If the Gov't relies upon the notwithstanding clause and people don't like it - they can vote for someone else.

http://economics.about.com
The greatest "human rights" victories in Canadian history before 1982 are often misinterpreted. Almost all of those victories are constitutional, but usually deal with the separation of powers.

Is there anywhere that you can get these findings free of charge? I thought cases like Roncarelli. v. Duplessis were about a lot more than mere separation of powers.

Cheers,

Mike

Geez, it's like we're all avoiding talking about the Jays play this year - and for good reason I guess :)

When they start playing, I'll start talking about it.

Canada was a fine country before the charter. I honestly can't think of one positive thing that came out of the charter that most people would be able to point to off hand, other than 'it's ours'. I think it made lawyers very happy though.

As for health care and the CPP are there many things that people complain about more?

The SCC is accountable to the principles set out in the Charter and Constitution, principles agreed upon by the democratically elected federal and provincial governments in 1982. If today's governments believe those principles are outdated or incorrect, they're free to modify them. Thankfully, it takes more than a stroke of the pen to do so.

The Notwithstanding Clause is a pretty weaselly out; it basically amounts to the government saying "This law unreasonably violates your rights, but we don't care". The public seems to realize this, which explains why the clause has almost never been used. (see Klein, Ralph)

Ryan Day, explain the Ralph Klein comment to me, please, last time I looked Ralph had not enacted the clause. For the record Ralph is not my favorite politician, he along with Chretien are excellent arguements for term limits, but Alberta is doing alright.

No, Roncarelli is all about separation of powers (though not even the Constitutional variety). Duplessis simply didn't have the authority to order the liquor commissioner to revoke the license, regardless of whether it was for supporting Jehovah's Witnesses or for serving drinks to minors.

167 In the instant case, the respondent was given no statutory power to interfere in the administration or direction of the Quebec Liquor Commission although as Attorney-General of the Province the Commission and its officers could of course consult him for legal opinions and legal advice. The Commission is not a department of government in the accepted sense of that term. Under the Alcoholic Liquor Act the Commission is an independent body with corporate status and with the powers and responsibilities conferred upon it by the Legislature. The Attorney-General is given no power under the said Act to intervene in the administration of the affairs of the Commission nor does the Attorney-General's Department Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 46, confer any such authority upon him.

A good library might have a selection of law reports.

http://economics.about.com
Thanks. It's been over 5 years since I've looked at this stuff, so my memory is pretty hazy.

Cheers,

Mike

No, Klein hasn't used the notwithstanding clause, but he seems to threaten it every time a court decision doesn't go his way. He wanted to use it to prevent having to pay compensation to mentally ill people who were sterilized, and he's grumbling about using it to prevent gay marriages. But people seem to notice it, so he pulls back.

Dean,

I think Ryan Day is referring to Ralph Klein's threat to use the notwithstanding clause. I only remember this occurring once: the Vriend case where the courts found Alberta's lack of protection for discrimination based on sexual orientation in its Human Rights Code had violated the Charter. Klein may not be your favourite politician but he is a smart politician. His threat to use the notwithstanding clause was just an appeasement for the redneck bible thumpers who make up a fair portion of his support. The threat, while empty, allowed Klein to make changes to the Human Rights Code and make it seem that he was being forced into it by Ottawa.

Economically, Alberta always does alright but it always lags behind in social issues. At least that's the views of this Redmontonian.

Only here can we get constitutional law discussion thrown in with (probably far more important) baseball discussion! What a place! :)

The Charter effectively made only two changes:

1. It codified what we believed to be our rights as of its date;

2. It made it so that if Parliament wants to take away rights granted therein, it must say specifically that it is doing so.

Under a Parliamentary system, Parliament (in other words the majority government of the day) is supreme. If the government wants to pass a law arresting all red-haired people or banishing all Expos fans, it can do so, at the risk only that it will be voted out whenever it calls the next election. The Charter merely requires that it must specifically state that it is passing the law notwithstanding that the law violates specified rights.

If I remember my Con Law (Osgoode, Class of '77), virtually every constitutional case pre-1982 concerned separation of Dominion (Federal)and Provincial powers. Granted, the courts (for many years until 1949 the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council) could and did decide that a measure was beyond the power of a level of government not because it really was, but because it kind of grossed someone out.

The courts have always been powerful in Canada. Under the British North America Act, the Provincial governments were meant to be little more than glorified municipal governments; their power was restricted to certain specified items and residual power went to the Dominion government. The Courts, especially the JCPC, decided that the clear words of the BNA Act couldn't mean what they say and for many years granted more and more power to the Provinces. That's how we have wound up with very strong Provincial governments and a (relatively) weak central government.

Is the Charter a good thing? It's nice to have a codification of rights as the UK does in Magna Carta (although many of those rights are obsolete) and as the US does in the Bill of Rights, although the danger with codification is that as new rights emerge they may not be treated with the same level of respect as the codified ones. I suppose also that it's a bit of a comfort to know that if the government is going to take away rights, it has to say it's taking away rights.

Anyway, to more important things - what has happened to the bats of Vernon and Carlos? If I remeber last year, Vernon was not great in April ('tho not as bad as this), but Carlos was great.

Good call Ryan. I had forgotten about the sterilization case. I haven't heard much grumbling from him to use the clause to block gay marriages. After drunkenly staggering into a Calgary homeless shelter and telling everyone to get a job, Klein hasn't made as many attempts to ride the moral high horse.

http://economics.about.com
I suppose also that it's a bit of a comfort to know that if the government is going to take away rights, it has to say it's taking away rights.

That's a good point. It kind of ends the debate about whether or not a law violates some right. The government is forced to say, "Yeah, it does, but we don't care".

I guess what I was trying to say earlier is that I don't see how the Charter protects us from another Duplessis. I think you're right that a lot of the decisions the Supreme Court made were because some of the measures of the Quebec government "kind of grossed someone out". I think a lot of the faith that the Notwithstanding Clause won't be used extensively in the future is misplaced.

Cheers,

Mike

I think a lot of the faith that the Notwithstanding Clause won't be used exstensively in the future is misplaced.

Mike, you're right. A truly evil government could, at any time, set itself up as a dictatorship using Parliamentary powers and the notwithstanding clause. Always remember that Hitler granted himself total power in 1933-34 after being elected (as a minority government) and by using completely constitutional measures under a German constitution which probably had more language protecting rights than does ours.

It's scary, but in any democratic nation desperate times can perfectly legally put a dictatorship into power.

I don't think that the not with standing clause would be used here to prop up an illegitamate government. We are a democracy and like the USA people have an understanding and expectation that they may be voted out of office. The notion that nine appointed people effectively are writing the laws of this country scares the hell out of me, figuratively. Right now the useage of the not withstanding clause is all that protects us from the court. Some may argue we have more to fear from politicians but I disagree, they may be voted out and laws changed.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
Actually, you couldn't use the notwithstanding clause to set yourself up as a dictatorship. The notwithstanding clause can only be applied to ss. 2 and 7-15 of the charter; all the democratic rights are contained in ss. 3-5. COMN for the Charter itself.

Of course, the notwithstanding clause could be used more frequently and for ill intents. But as has been pointed out here, using it amounts to the government announcing "This violates your rights!", and it's incumbent upon the voters to stand up to a government that abuses the provision.

There is, admittedly, no protection for a populace that is apathetic to its government. I'm not sure such a populace is deserving of protection, anyway.

http://economics.about.com
You could use 4(2), however.

scary, but in any democratic nation desperate times can perfectly legally put a dictatorship into power.

Any democratic nation can elect a dictatorship at any time. I don't know why your fears are confined to the notwithstanding clause.

Back to the contest discussion -- I'm closest to the views of Mike Green, because I don't much like the "Greatest Canadian" contest and I won't be participating, for a number of reasons. Here comes the soapbox.

First of all, the whole exercise of deciding "which of us is the greatest" is highly questionable, and has been at least since Biblical times (Mark 9:33-37, for example). Setting aside the whole key question of the importance of humility, the effort to identify the greatest is questionable because there is no set criteria for "greatness," so no one is working from the same rulebook. Accordingly, many people either vote for someone whose accomplishments magnify their personal experiences and preferences, or they make an assessment of what "great" is generally held to mean (an assessment deeply informed by mass media) and pick someone they've heard of who seems to fit that description. The eventual choice of "greatest Canadian" will tell us more about our affinity for lists and heirarchies, and about our own biases, than it will about recognizing true greatness.

Secondly, while the search for "greatness" in one sense renders this exercise very un-Canadian (as Mike G suggests), in another way, it's all too Canadian, because it continues this nation's seemingly endless fascination with our identity and our self-esteem. The question "Who is the greatest Canadian?" necessarily presumes the question, "What is a Canadian?", because before you can say what the best individual X is, you need to have a clear understanding of X. And as we all know, "What is a Canadian?" has been debated in so many essays, books, CBC specials, National Film Board productions, doctoral theses, cultural seminars and Royal Commissions -- all of them deep, earnest, bespectacled, frowning, and altogether excruciating affairs -- that the whole subject makes me (and most of my centennial generation) shudder convulsively. The inherent navel-gazing nature of these progams is what really, to me, defines Canada: our continuing search for an identity is, in fact, the very identity we're searching for. That breeds a national caution, a deep-set uncertainty, a distrust of extremes, and an even deeper distrust of success: Canada cheers its winners, but we love our runners-up. We honour our military victories, but we remember and dwell on our greatest losses. We cheered Rick Hansen, who finished his journey, but we lionize Terry Fox, who didn't.

Contrast this with Americans; I've never heard of a contest that asks "Who is the greatest American?" Our southern neighbours love hierarchies and rankings as much as we do, of course, but they narrow their inquiries to determine who is the greatest American president or quarterback or amateur musician. Ask a US citizen the broader question, "Who is the greatest American?", and you'll probably get a blank stare in return -- and maybe, the answer: "We all are." Americans, if I may generalize wildly, don't have self-identity or self-esteem issues. They believe in their very fibres that America is the best country and Americans are the best people; they rarely have doubts about that and they never feel the need to regularly examine either premise. This is what many Canadians dislike most about Americans; we call it smugness, while they call it confidence. That's only fair, because we think of it is "peacekeeping" and they think of it as "wimping out." Arrogance and confidence are simply two sides of the same coin that's in wide currency in the US but has had only limited circulation here. Really, the only things we're arrogant about here are hockey, beer and self-righteousness.

I think one of the signs of a healthy national psyche is that a nation stops looking inward all the time and starts looking outward. In fairness, Canada is much further along this road than it used to be, and I hope that someday we'll be sufficiently developed that we don't need artifical stimulants -- government-distributed flags, government-sponsored feel-good advertising, government-approved contests -- to know that Canada is a great country equalled by some and surpassed by none. The less thinking about what makes us a people, and the more we actually do as a people, the happier I believe we'll be.

I am largely in agreement with Jordan, except maybe for this part:

The less thinking about what makes us a people, [...] the happier I believe we'll be.

Happier, maybe, but if, as you say, this constant search for identity is one of the things that makes us Canadian, then aren't we losing something if we stop doing it? Canada has always been a very experimental kind of enterprise, and to me that's one of the best things about the country: that we're still kind of making it up as we go along. I think it's actually a strength, in a weird way.

By the way, the irony of this discussion about the Charter of Rights is that today is Law Day, the CBA-sponsored national day of activities and events explaining the law to high-schoolers, scheduled to commemorate the proclamation of the Charter (which turns 22 on Saturday).

Canada has always been a very experimental kind of enterprise, and to me that's one of the best things about the country: that we're still kind of making it up as we go along. I think it's actually a strength, in a weird way.

Cheers for Matthew. I couldn't have said it better.

If we are talking about what makes us a country, we are talking to each other, not past each other. The constant search for what brings us together is a far, far better thing than politics in Europe, where what brings nations together is obvious and divisive; or the U.S.. where there is a constant search these days for things to drive people apart.

The greatest series comes from Britain, it's not a Canadian invention.
The creators hope to have a bunch of countries (including the States) have their own version of the show, after which they will have a show to determine that greatest person of all time.

Part of the reason we lionize Terry Fox is because he was first. Also, cancer is much more far reaching than spinal cord injuries, so it gets more headlines and more money. No disrepect meant to Rick Hansen, who's obviously a very dedicated and courageous man.

And Canada is hardly along in cheering for Matyrs and remembering failure. It's the strength displayed by some of these people (military troups, Fox, etc) that makes them memorable and worthy of our admiration.

The Charter has resulted in the Supreme Court having far too much power and influence.

You know, Dean, a few months ago I would have jumped all over this. I would have trotted out all of my old arguments:

-tyranny of the majority;

-the Courts have the ability to do what is right, as opposed to what is poplular;

-SCC Judges are our academic elite and thus best suited to interpret the laws in accord with justice;

-representative government is "buffoonery by proxy";

-etc.

These points are still valid, and I still like them, but I have recently come to think that perhaps my zealous advocacy of judicial activism extends only to the degree to which I agree with the interpretations that the Court gives.

I still don't like great degrees of deference to Parliament - which is ironic considering that the King of Deference (former SCC Justice LaForest) has an office at my school, just down the hall from the huge marble bust in his image and one floor above the library named after him.

Over the past year, the Court has refused to be activist in the face of oppressive legislation in two big cases - Walsh v. Bona and R. v. Malmo-Levine - so I'm just not sure that activism is as big a problem as you describe, Dean.

My point is that activism is rather anti-septic in and of itself. You have to attach it to a context before you can impugn it.

Yes, but Leigh, Dean's point wasn't that the Court is activist.

His point was that the Court has too much power and influence.

The first may or may not be correct (I say not... I think the Supremes tend, if anything, toward absolutely minimal interference with governmental powers where the Constitution allows them to do so). There are arguments on both sides - the Court clearly used to be (still sometimes is) pretty cutting-edge in political terms.

But the second is unquestionably true. The Supreme Court has *way* too much power and influence - because Parliament (and to a lesser extent, provincial governments) have simply abdicated their responsibility to legislate. The Constitution forces the Court to step into that power vacuum. It's not really its fault - and not, I think, a fault in the Charter or Constitution. It's a fault of Parliament, which no longer bothers to proactively legislate, because it sits back and waits for the Court to tell them what to do.

If anyone wants a reason to lionize The Many Faces Of Pierre Trudeau, the crusading Justice Minister who dramatically pulled the state out of "the bedrooms of the nation" is as good a reason as any to do so. Nobody in politics has the guts to do something like that anymore, to legislate (without their hand being forced) a positive change that protects and enhances people's rights and freedoms.

It's a fault of Parliament, which no longer bothers to proactively legislate, because it sits back and waits for the Court to tell them what to do.

I agree with this.

I did miss Dean's point. He was saying that the SCC has too much power, and I took that to mean that they too often exert that power.

http://economics.about.com
It's a fault of Parliament, which no longer bothers to proactively legislate, because it sits back and waits for the Court to tell them what to do.

Is that the fault of parliament, or the fault of the voter? Do Canadians really want their politicians to legislate?

Do Canadians really want their politicians to legislate?

I haev no idea. Seems sort of irrelevant to the question, as Parliament spend a LOT of time legislating.