On January 26, the historian Alexandre Dumas criticized in The duty a column by the historian Frédéric Bastien published in the Montreal Journal and The Journal of Quebec. This was based on my testimony as to the role of René Chaloult during the adoption of the Fleurdelisé by Duplessis. Dumas uses several fallacious arguments to attack my credibility and that of Mr. Bastien.
He first writes that at the time of the facts, I was only 13 years old. He thus affirms that I know nothing about it and would only peddle low-level rumours. However, in my early twenties, I met Gérald Martineau, a close friend of Duplessis, and I became one of his confidants. He even granted me the first scholarship from the “Maurice Duplessis” foundation, of which he was the president. It is a verifiable fact. I also met Duplessis himself on a few occasions and was also an MP under Daniel Johnson. Several people still living can testify to the role I played at the time.
These details made, let’s get to the heart of the matter, the fact that Chaloult received money to pretend to put pressure on Duplessis to give Quebec a distinctive flag. Dumas affirms that Duplessis would not have had to bribe him, because he would thus have paid an independent deputy to defend his own cause. However, the fact is that in 1960, during one of my many meetings with Gérald Martineau, he showed me a check for more than $30,000, a considerable sum at the time, which had been cashed by Chaloult.
Duplessis feared, when the flag was adopted, the reaction of the English Canadian media, which were read by American investors in Quebec. This is why he asked Chaloult to hound him in the House on the adoption of a Quebec flag. He wanted to appear to have given in to the demands of the opposition. Dumas says of this strategy that it makes no sense. We can discuss its merits. Except that’s what Duplessis did. I got it from Mr. Martineau himself. M. Dumas cannot reject out of hand my direct testimony of the events on the pretext that it seems to him that Duplessis would not have had such a bad strategy.
Moreover, like many other politicians of the time, including Duplessis, Chaloult was drinking and had money problems. Martineau was able to help an adversary become a friend for the adoption of the flag. Admittedly, the National Union (UN) and Mr. Chaloult were at loggerheads during the first unionist government, but the animosity precisely disappeared when the famous flag was adopted, because Chaloult had long been campaigning in favor of a national flag. Subsequently, moreover, the UN did not present a candidate against him in the elections of 1948 and 1952, a clear sign of reconciliation.
Mr. Dumas affirms rather for his part that Chaloult and Duplessis have always been adversaries, and this, to impugn my intentions. The purpose of my testimony would not be to shed new light on the adoption of the flag, but to inelegantly smear a political opponent now deceased. Frédéric Bastien, meanwhile, would be guilty of giving me the floor to accomplish this dark objective.
René Chaloult had given himself all the credit for the adoption of the flag in a newspaper article written a few years after the events. He obviously did not recount the dealings with Duplessis and, above all, avoided talking about the help received. In 1960, I discussed Chaloult’s claims with Mr. Martineau, and the latter did not want to spread the word about the affair so as not to soil the flag.
During my interview with Mr. Bastien, he pointed out to me that Chaloult spoke of his role in connection with the flag in his memoirs. That’s when I told him about my discussion with Gérald Martineau. However, I forgot to tell him that it was in a newspaper that I had read about the unique and difficult role that Mr. Chaloult attributed to himself for the adoption of the flag and that I had discussed it immediately afterwards. with Mr. Martineau. Bastien understood that I had spoken to him after reading Chaloult’s memoirs. This is impossible for two reasons. Martineau had died before the said memoirs were published, and I myself never read Chaloult’s memoirs. This explains an error of fact in Mr. Bastien’s chronicle that Mr. Dumas points out. However, this point does not change anything essential.
In the end, Dumas reproaches Bastien for having made my testimony public. It would be “incongruous” for someone who “presents himself as a historian”, as if he were a charlatan. However, this one did nothing but help me to publicize my lighting on the adoption of fleurdelisé. Dumas should rejoice instead of rearing up. I’m telling the truth, and if he thinks I’m lying, let him prove it.
Before implying that I am a liar, Mr. Dumas could easily have contacted me. He is a historian, writer and lecturer in the network of Universities of Quebec; this entails obligations such as that of verifying, twice rather than once, the facts that he is about to publish. From now on, if I have to quote M. Dumas, I will do so with great reservations and some apprehension.