On January 21, 2023, historian Frédéric Bastien wrote a column in which he revealed certain “secrets” surrounding the adoption of fleurdelisé. More specifically, he tells us that MP René Chaloult (1901-1978), who is often called the father of the flag, would have been paid by Maurice Duplessis and the Union Nationale to put public pressure on the government to have the Quebec flag in 1948. This rumor conveyed by former Unionist deputy Antonio Flamand (1933-) is absurd.
First, Duplessis would not have had to bribe Chaloult. The latter already demanded the adoption of a national flag during his first term, in 1936-1939. The Union Nationale was prodigal with its election fund, but it would not have wasted its funds by paying an independent deputy to defend its own cause.
Next, Duplessis would never have justified himself to Anglophone public opinion by claiming to have had to give in to the demands of the opposition. English Canadians may not have understood the national aspirations of French Canadians, but they understood how provincial politics worked. Why would Duplessis have been forced to give in to the will of a single independent MP when he was leading a majority government? Such a speech would certainly not have bought social peace, and the “Chief” could only be aware of it.
According to Bastien, Antonio Flamand asked Gérald Martineau to make Chaloult’s duplicity public after the publication of the latter’s memoirs. This scenario is highly unlikely since Martineau died in 1968, while Chaloult’s memoirs appeared in 1969. One can also wonder how Flamand, 13 years old when Chaloult tabled his motion calling for the adoption of a flag provincial, on March 19, 1947, could have witnessed the maneuvers of its leaders.
Elected in 1936 with the Union Nationale, René Chaloult quickly slammed the door of his party. It is a decision that his former colleagues will never forgive him. The day after his resignation, the Union Nationale’s rumor machine started to tarnish his reputation. Already in 1937, Maurice Duplessis and his colleague Auguste Boyer declared in the middle of the Blue Salon that Chaloult had received a reprimand from the Bar for having charged exorbitant fees to a client.
The Bar, however, never sent a reprimand, and the client in question later admitted having been pushed to bring a lawsuit “by people interested in harming Mr. Chaloult”. Sometimes you have to be wary of what political opponents say.
It is incongruous, to say the least, for a man who presents himself as a historian to convey such “secrets” in a widely circulated daily without even taking the trouble to back up the statements of his sources. The sole testimony of a person who only repeats rumors cannot be presented to the public as a proven fact. If Frédéric Bastien wishes to echo rumors that are more than 50 years old, he should push his research further than the simple testimony of a man who did not witness the events reported.