By Dr. Rob Huebert, 14 February 2024
As the relationship between United States and Canada continues to suffer one blow after another from the new Trump Administration, this is perhaps the time to reflect upon the recent launching and naming of the Joint Support Ships (JSS). The readers of this forum will know that the future HMCS Protecteur was named and launched on December 13, 2024. Many readers of this forum will also know that the two JSS were supposed to be named the Battle of Queenston Heights and the Battle of the Chateauguay which were both British victories over the Americans in the War of 1812. The decision not to use these names was made by the subsequent Trudeau government in 2017. According to reports by CBC, the decision was made because:
“(a)lthough themes drawn from the War of 1812 were deemed viable, the naming of warships after historically significant land battles has not proven to resonate well with Canadians and is not consistent with Royal Canadian Navy practice," the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, told Sajjan on Aug. 26, 2016.
CNR editorial board member Dr. Marc Milner was quoted in the story as pointing out that there was also unease with the navy itself over a name that was an army victory and not one that that involved the navy. Furthermore, the Trudeau government does not like to use names that the previous government had proposed as witnessed by its decision to also rename the Polar icebreaker from Diefenbaker to Arpatuuq and the second proposed one to Imnaryuaq.
As illustrious and proud the names Protecteur and Preserver are to the RCN, one could ruminate over the lost opportunity to have reminded the Americans with the names Battle of Queenston Heights and the Battle of the Chateauguay that “we” have beaten them before.
Image: HMCS Protecteur (JSS1) on Saturday, December 21, 2024 docking at VSY after launching at VDC. Credit: Mike Savage via RCN.
10 thoughts on “Reflecting on the Names of the Joint Support Ships”
The government was right that the names did not meet the standard naming convention of warships, and this decision was way before the US foolishness we have now. Even to suggest naming them or lamenting the “lost” opportunity is petty although consistent of the rhetoric I have been seeing on social media currently. This is right up there with booing the US national anthem at hockey games.
Right on Ted! There is nothing wrong at all with again naming RCN warships after past vessels. I hope to visit the new HMCS Protecteur JSS once she is commissioned in Halifax to see what new capabilities she has, as compared to the old Protecteur that I served on so many years ago. Booing any National Anthem is a no, no – no matter the reason or what country it is. I understand it because of recent events, but don’t appreciate it whatsoever!!
Ted, I don’t entirely agree with the name change. Regardless of what ‘conventions’ may suggest, it is entirely appropriate to commemorate a significant military victory achieved for the benefit of Canada. Whether that victory was won at sea or on land should make no difference. Tell me, if the landing at Juno Beach was a significant military accomplishment, how would the RCN’s ship-naming ‘convention’ apply? Or could it apply? The operation came from the sea (BZ, RCN), but the goal was to achieve a beachhead in Western Europe and take the fight inland (BZ, Cdn Army).
As things are, there are precious few opportunities to educate the Canadian public on military events that made Canada. Even if the victory at Queenston Heights was largely achieved with British Army regulars, Canada was the beneficiary.
I also feel compelled to point out that it’s the Government of Canada that “owns” these ships – not the RCN. So with all due respect for the ships’ naming committee, ‘convention’ is what we choose to make it.
There is a whole official document on how the RCN names ships. At the time the names of British battles resonated with the government of the day but also was controversial because after all they were British battles and we don’t name after battles, same as Juno Beach as that argument came up at the same time as well. Even naming the AOPS was controversial as we don’t name after people as well.
Understand that the public won’t be educated, God forbid, they don’t get this taught in school or they can’t crack open a book on history. You are correct that these are government of Canada ships, not RCN ships and the politics of the day play into this as well. As seen, the government seems to justify and make up what they want as they go but in this case in my opinion we did the right thing.
This might be splitting hairs, but the fact that we don’t name ships after battles is a choice, and we do ourselves no harm in questioning that choice so long as the reasons behind ‘convention’ (“whole official RCN document”?) remain opaque.
Agreed that public education is the best means of connecting Canadians with their history, but if a ship’s name carrying a battle honour or a notable person prompts an otherwise ignorant land-lubber to crack a book or consult Wikipedia, or causes the public at large to recall key events or personages in our history, can we not see the benefit? (I never knew who Maggie Brooke or Fred Rolette was before the AOPVs were christened.)
What’s in a name? That’s easy: what’s important to the country.
Hello BB. The ship’s name changes from from HMCS Queenston & HMCS Chateauguay, although maybe historically correct, were never going to make the grade, politically. Thus the name change to ships that were historically a better choice. I will also remind you that the RCN ships are not owned by the Canadian Government OR the RCN. The citizens of this great country own every ship or submarine in the RCN’s inventory (past, present & future) and always will. The Naming Convention Committee is not part of any military organization and can only recommend ships names to the Minister of National Defence for approval, who is a government leader and Cabinet Minister designated by the Prime Minister and are all elected by the citizens of Canada and not by any Convention Committee. Cheers!
“….were never going to make the grade, politically.”
Two military ops that helped secure Canada’s independence from the US were not worthy of commemoration? Per Blair Shaw comment below, was the Trudeau government afraid of rubbing our neighbour’s nose in something?
Can you elaborate on your statement/assertion, Dave?
Hello BB. In my opinion, these name changes were made, at the time, by the government to appease our neighbours to the south and not ruffle any feathers politically, thus the name changes to both JSS ships to HMCS Protecteur & Preserver. If we have a change in government this year, things may change….again, but for now, I have no problems at all with both these JSS names. They are both outstanding names that have served Canada well in the past, and will again.
We have seen similarly in the UK with the renaming of the 7th Astute boat from Agincourt to Achilles in order not to upset the French.
Note: that this is actually the 3rd name for this boat before launch her first name was Ajax.
We need to cut out this nonsense of trying not to offend and alter history. The reality is do you really think the French or USA care? No they most likely don’t.
C’mon, even the RCN has stopped using “Joint Support Ships”. Nowhere was it said that ships would have “Battle of” in the names. Perish the thought that Canada honours history.