Before I proceed to defend CBC's Greatest Canadian project, I should make it clear that on a personal level, I too found the results to be dissatsifying. The man I endorsed didn't even crack the Top 100, while such a "musician" as Avril Lavigne hit #40, higher than she ever deserved to be on the singles charts, let alone this.

Indeed, alongside the esteemed and ever-so-well-dressed Mr. Cherry, Lavigne is most often cited as the exemplar of why the entire exercise is a futile and illegitimate publicity stunt. Instead, I would argue that while the search for "the Greatest Canadian" may be a victim of what is perhaps a misnomer, that in no way hurts its legitimacy.

I turn my attention to the question of purpose. Why the sensationalism? Why bother pitting Gretzky against Pearson in the Canadian Broadcasting Colosseum when they are "great" in completely different ways?

Because, dear reader, the results should not be taken as an indicator of the Greatest Canadian. They should be taken as a reflection of our present society.

The "transformation function," which Mr. Jones rightly claims is not agreed upon, is perhaps intentionally vague. Do we mean the people who have achieved the greatest things, with eligibility relegated to having held Canadian citizenship at some point, or being born on Canadian soil? Do we mean the people who have been most representative of the vague construct we call "Canadian values"? Nobody knows. Nobody should know.

The comparative arrangement of certain names and faces relative to others is not based on quality of argumentation, it's based on a numerical aggregate quantification of "votes." This tells us that the determination of what makes one "great" follows not from the reasons that are in the minds and justifications of the poll participants, but from the results themselves. If one wishes to boil the criterion of what makes a great Canadian down to a single question, it would be this: how iconic is that individual in the public consciousness?

Again, the answer to that question is shaped by the aggregate results, and not the justifications.

From that we can reveal the true nature of the Greatest Canadian feature and unmask it for what it is - a self-assessment on the part of the Canadian media, and a barometer of how successful the ideological state apparatus has been in convincing people that some things are Canadian, some things are great, and some Canadians have greatness thrust upon them.

People complain about the inclusion of Don Cherry. I say that honouring Alexander Graham Bell is all the more egregious. Not only was he born in Scotland and did most of his research in the United States, all he ever did was patent the fellytone. But the fact that he made it into the Top Ten should tell us something: it tells us that the media has been fully successful in taking the three years Bell spent in Brantford, Ontario and convincing the Canadian public that it was a big flag-waving deal.

Take a look at the Top Ten again and see how it exhibits a bias in favour of politicians. Three Prime Ministers and the folk hero of the NDP? Egads. Combine that with the fact that Mr. Jones himself recommended John Crosbie, and already one observes yet another assessment of the impact of our media and educational institutions. The Canadian population at large has been programmed to believe that politicians, particularly those who claim the top seat, are the great movers and shakers in our country. ("But they are!" you might say. Congraulations - you have just been programmed.)

The compilation of such a list culled from thousands of votes is also valuable in a historical sense. Earmark the Greatest Canadian project and file it under 2004, because it is a time capsule specific to the current trends in the icons that the media promotes. A hundred years ago, Louis Riel would have stood as good a chance of making the list as the FLQ alumni yearbook does today. Yet now he's sitting pretty at #11. Ladies and gentlemen, kindly place a checkmark next to reparative pro-Métis revisionism and give our K-12 Social Studies curricula another pat on the back.

Look at the Hollywood stars in the Top 100. Are they there because they have done anything for the country? I guess you could make a case for Can-Am dual citizen Pamela Anderson, on the grounds of validating the Arrogant Worms song "Canada Is Really Big." But generally, they are only included because as was the case with Alexander Graham Bell, the media shouted "Hey, he's Canadian!" and did it loud enough for everyone to hear.

And that's probably why Oscar Peterson has been robbed of the #1 he deserves. Not enough people know he's Canadian. You'd think that the polyharmonic strains of "Hogtown Blues" (or dare I mention it, "Land of the Misty Giants") would clue them in, but a surprising number of classy martini-sipping jazz-clubbers in this country are unaware that he's "one of us" - or so the poll results would tell us. But we all know about Stompin' Tom Connors (#13), because his Canadian-ness is more overtly observable, having moved and shaked stadiums of twenty thousand people at a time with his nationalistic proclamation that someone roars, "Bobby (#19) scores!" at the good ol' hockey game.

This exercise is therefore not one to determine the Canadian with the greatest achievements, be they representative of the nation's identity or otherwise. It is to gauge who is most identifiable as a cultural possession of the Maple Leaf Forever. One day we can look back, reminisce about 2004, and laugh about including Jean Chrétien (#45) over a hot double-double (#59). Then we can do this all over again, and see what's changed. I am not suggesting that the CBC should run such a poll on a regular basis, mind you; maybe once in a blue moon, as in a year where it can build up public awareness of its survey as its spring ratings coast on the heels of a long-lost hockey team rising from the dead.

Take your time, Oilers.

(The ideas contained in this post would not have been possible without the influence of the founder of media studies, my second choice for Greatest Canadian behind the God of Jazz Piano. He came in 62nd, despite having invented the Internet in every way Al Gore wanted to.)