Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Apr 1, 2014



Bienvenue à une édition spéciale de l’émission! Cette fois, nous sommes honorés d’accueillir Frank Richard et Martin Brunet. Nous discutons la souveraineté du Québec et comment cela affecte le Canada, particulièrement en face à la prochaine élection. Nous discutons aussi un peu le GP de Montréal et les trois règles de Frankie.

Welcome to a special edition of the show! This time on the cast we are honored to have Frank Richard and Martin Brunet with us. We discuss Quebec sovereignty and how that affects Canada, especially in the face of their upcoming election. We also discuss a little GP Montreal and Frankie’s three rules.

LEAVE US FEEDBACK! We love to hear from you. Every comment you leave is read, and we’re always looking for ways to improve the show.

Contact us on Twitter:

@robotlarge – Mike Ringer
@theproxyguy – Josh Putz

RSS Feed:

Special thanks to Frankie and Martin for joining us. Also thanks to Jason Mong (@offensivemtg) for working his audio editing magic and to @kytmagic for being awesome.

Make sure to listen to Heavy Meta and check out all the great stuff at ManaDeprived!

  • Bruce Lee

    The best part about this cast was hearing advanced topics being broken down into basic logic and understanding. We far too often neglect the desire to know more about something because we hear it’s “a complicated issue”.
    So far I’ve enjoyed the podcasts with four people much more than the ones with three, it’s interesting to bring in two similar yet differentiating guests. The one exception to this was Marcel’s cast for several reasons.

    • Mike Ringer

      Interesting comment Bruce. I think it’s really about chemistry. It’s hard to put the right people together for a topic and obviously we’re just learning that skill. This time we nailed it. 😀

  • inkyscholar

    Frankie is Amazing! How is he not on a regular podcast anymore.

    • Mike Ringer

      I think that’s truely by Franky’s choice. There are plenty of existing casts that would fight over him

  • Nick El Nutz

    Another amazing cast guys. Have to say, I learned more about Canadian politics in the 2.5 hours of the podcast than my 4 years of high school taught me. A very nice change of pace from the “usual” magic podcasts.

    And since it was lost on me, but now explained Frankie’s boozecube card is now going in my boozecube. As much as I want to see Robot dick across the table, having the rules of the universe on the table is going to be better.

    • Mike Ringer

      Yeah I admit, I also totally missed that Franky’s card had the rules in it. When that came out in the cast, my mind was totally blown.

  • Kim

    As a person who have lived in a couple of countries, moved to Canada over a decade ago and now call it home, unfortunately, I roll my eyes whenever I hear Quebecois talking about splitting themselves from Canada. For example, when I made my application for (what was called then) Permanent Resident, there was completely set of forms if my plans were to move to Quebec. I thought myself “seriously?!”. Back then I didn’t have the background details as today; however, first impression counts.

    After living all these years in Canada (in the West, I must mention) and have travelled to several provinces (ironically, not to Quebec, though I was once in Ottawa but didn’t cross the bridge to Gatineau), I still have mixed feelings about Quebec. Now, I appreciate that Quebec has kept its unique identity, as it makes the rest of us Canadians honest about who we are, not to mention Canada being an extension of sorts of our neighbours to the south. At the same time, this talk every couple of years about the topic makes me wonder if Quebecois (or politicians at least) have some form of narcissistic personality behaviour of sorts, as in make some noise just for the rest of Canada acknowledge they are there. For comparison purposes, during the oil boom, you didn’t hear from Alberta about separating because of the economic surplus.

    After listening this episode, I have gained a bit more understanding from individual’s perspective. Alas, it hasn’t convinced me about me general feelings regarding the Quebecois noisemakers.

    • TheProxyGuy

      I honestly believe that the majority will always see the minority as narcissistic in any of their endeavors. The majority sees the status quo as working, so they might no see any tangible reason to make changes. The minority doesn’t want to be the minority, so when they speak up against the status quo, it’s seen as being potentially narcissistic.

      At it’s most base, my personal belief is that no human should ever be in power over another. And no human should give power over themselves to any other human.

    • Franky Richard

      I find this type of attitude disrespectful and ignorant.

      • Kim

        If just realized I made a small mistake in the second paragraph. It should read: ” not to mention Canada NOT being an extension of sorts of our neighbours to the south”.

        In my comment, I gave my personal experience in the past, present and after listening to the podcast. If you believe my “attitude is disrespectful and ignorant”, put it from this perspective: that is my opinion on the other side of the fence. While I do agree on some aspects (some things ought to be done at a provincial level rather than federal), the way it is constantly being presented does not help the case. In fact, think the opposite: what if the rest of Canada was to vote to separate from Quebec? If the political leaders (or common citizen) were to present a plan or model – such as Wales mentioned in the episode or Switzerland – rather than just ideas to stir things up, I will be more willing to pay attention. Until then, unfortunately, it will be the status quo.

        ProxyGuy, Quebec’s has around a quarter of Canadian population and generates about 20% of the GDP. So, saying it is minority might not fit the category.

        • Franky Richard

          People just need to realize that it’s a valid argument and it needs to be resolved at some point. Labeling it as noise or some narcissistic whim just makes things worse.

          I would urge you to form an opinion based on facts rather than what the media will spin at you. If you don’t know enough, just own up to it. I’m not gonna say “Yeah Wales shouldn’t separate, what a bunch of lunatics” cause I know nothing of the political situation there.

          • TheProxyGuy

            I wonder as it has been an issue for this long if the UK model just won’t work at this point. A very interesting read on the countries within the UK being granted some level of autonomous government can be found @

          • Franky Richard

            I read this in the paper today: “If there is a form of xenophobic intolerance somewhere, it is in this systematic defamation of Quebec’s legitimate aspirations.”

            It’s a sad, but accurate depiction of what’s happening and it pains me very much.

          • Kim

            ProxyGuy, I have lived in a country where a president is elected via direct election, i.e., you actually vote for him/her. Things weren’t necessarily prettier, as quite often, the legislative branch majority usually end up being from the same party, hence almost complete power for that party until next election. Notice that, in the US, there is no direct democracy either, given how the president is elected (surprise, in the US, you don’t actually vote for the president either!).

            Overall, I feel given the size of countries nowadays (specially in terms of population and effects due to migration), unless you live somewhere small and not as populated, such as Iceland, political systems will have gaps and issues. I feel it is more a question of how much you are willing to accept. In my case, Canadian’s system, despite its flaws, is something I can live with, specially considering where I lived previously.

          • Kim

            I am going to oversimplify my case: The provinces and territories of Canada are townhouses/rowhouses/detached houses in a cul-de-sac, where the strata/homeowners association is the Federal government. From that perspective, similar to you, I dislike the fact the strata would impose regulations such as doing laundry or dishwashing at 3:00 a.m. or have all the fences painted in a colour with a weird name. Now, if there are fights within a household, for the most part, it is something that should be left within that household walls. Since it was brought up, the Quebec Charter of Values, while I have opinion of those, at the end of the day, because it is something from withing Quebec (and does not affect me directly), there is nothing for me to say.

            If so, from somebody living at the other end of the cul-de-sac, everytime the topic of Quebec’s sovereignty comes in as part of the provincial election, I feel it is some sort of internal argument in that household. The initial reaction would be mostly of noise and after spending time in my own personal things, I can only put that many hours in the issues of the other side of the country, specially since there is limited vested interest. By the time it arrives to the ears of the other households (fortunately or unfortunately, via news and similar media), agreed, there will be some distortion. But, still, it is the fact we feel it is some internal fighting and the overall question is whether some of the arguments brought up have some merit. And, of course, hopefully not some comedic ones, such as instances of some overzealous employee at the Office Québécois de la Langue Française.

            Let’s put one into perspective: the topic of letting the other provinces pass through and using a common currency was put out. Now, if I was somebody from the outside looking into this, I would said this is actually doable: several countries use US dollars as currency, despite they don’t print it and there is the Schengen Agreement. Whether that will work within the context of rest of Canada and Quebec is something to be determined.

            Next time I hear the topic of Quebec’s sovereignty, I don’t just want to hear that from political leaders. I want to hear there is a definite plan. And, if it is to split from Canada for good, I want to hear specific plans and then left things in a wondering “what now?” situation. Or as my former boss used to preach me: If you are coming here with a problem, come here with a tentative solution as well. Notice I am not arguing whether Quebec’s sovereignty is a valid argument or not. Quebec has uniqueness of its own and I will rather be kept as such (whether as part of Canada or not). Instead, I want specifics on how things will be done. Until then, as a person from the outside, it is close to be nothing but a bargaining chip in a political election. Now, if a political leader was to come up and say, “you know what things as is currently is not working. Here is a list of reasons why. A model similar to the European Union will work for us and here is the list of reasons why”, then I will be more willing to listen… But until then, my personal opinion on the matter stands.

            PS1: My opinion is based on my thoughts based on what I know, perspective, personal experiences and/or information presented to me. If a part of that equation change, my opinion will change accordingly. As mentioned, the arguments brought up didn’t change my opinion and won’t do it just because you say so.
            PS2: If I was in a higher education place and an instructor came with that argument, I would have certainly fought back in a similar way. Classrooms are not places for people of authority to be preaching their believes.

          • Franky Richard

            As Martin pointed out during the cast, the main issue of this election is *not* Quebec’s sovereignty, it’s actually the Liberals who bring it to the forefront since fear tactics is their only card left. That usually leads to very poor debate. They’ve also branded themselves as the Champions of the Economy, however their last stint in power has lead to unprecedented levels of corruption.

            As I said on the show, I think they need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that’s mutually agreeable. There’s however a strong trend in discrediting any discussions of this kind within the media, so I don’t expect the level of noise to diminish anytime soon.

    • Franky Richard

      This was written by a friend of mine to his brother on Facebook and I feel exactly the same way. It may also explain my response to you.

      “When I was a student at Concordia, I attended a course on ethnic relations. The teacher was of Italian descent (I do not really remember her name, but I liked her a lot). It was one of those college classes that occur in an auditorium because we were a very large group. Let’s say we were 120 students. It was shortly after the referendum and many people, including the majority of English-speaking immigrants, were still very frustrated with the idea of a referendum.

      Therefore, the discussion came on the “sovereignty” and the point of view of teacher explained that if Quebec separated from Canada and the Mohawks might also be willing to separate. And why not? Moreover, it is still what they want to do.

      The teacher then announced that the principle of the sovereignty of Quebec did not make sense, it was silly. Of course, this took place before an audience already sold on this view. Several people expressed their opinion, each supporting the idea that it was silly.

      It bothered me. Not because I was a sovereignist or that I was a nationalist, because I was not. But because I did not think it was silly. My parents were sovereignists and although my father was just a rural postman and my mother a teacher in high school, I know they were not idiots and they had good reasons, according to them, to be sovereignists .

      I did not speak much English when I started at Concordia and I was a little intimidated to intervene, but I raised my hand and I did. I only asked for one thing: “If over 49 % of the population thinks it’s a good idea, then I believe we should not call them idiots.”

      I liked the teacher as I told you and she found my comment very funny and agreed that no longer uses this term.

      I do not particularly like Pauline Marois and I do not agree with many of her ideas. But hatred of Quebec makes me feel the same as you. I am proud to be a Quebecer as my wife is proud to be Vietnamese and I have great difficulty with the pleasure some take in vomiting on Quebec and its politics.”

    • Mike Ringer

      Kim and Franky, thank you for your comments and discussion. I think the only way for Canadians to fully understand this issue is through open and honest discussion. That’s why I wanted to do this cast in the first place. I think there is a lot to be learned on both sides of the issue. I fully admit that I am fairly ignorant of how the people of Quebec feel on this issue. One thing though.. I would argue that it’s likely that people in Quebec are also ignorant of how the rest of Canada feels towards them. As much as it’s easy for Westerners to write-off Quebec sovereignty as noise, it’s equally easy for Quebec to make assumptions about how the West feels. We’re ALL influenced by media and if we are lazy about doing out own research and being open to discussion, then both sides have work to do.