There are winners and losers whenever you have to pick namesakes for ships, it might not be the goal to "prefer" one nation/group over another but you are fundamentally doing so when some make the grade and others are left on the cutting room floor.
No I am not fundamentally doing such. I guess I will have to explain such as you 100% missed such.
If you go back and read the hypothetical proposed names you will see it is very different.
The RCN has a history of using native names for warships which in the most part correspond to rivers. Look at the "steamers" , ... ie the St.Laurent, MacKenzie, Restigouche, and Annapolis class. All named after rivers. And if one looks at the origin of the river names,
10 were of Indigenous origin, 3 named after explorers, 6 mostly french language origin, and 1 likely named related to British royalty.
Clearly , "Indigenous" is the largest origin.
Further, which you noted that you did see on the website, the RCN on a government webpage clearly indicates
for the River Class it intends to use Indigenous names - which is 100% contrary to your devil's advocate position that such use of Indigenous names will be offensive because not every aspect of Canada's Indigenous culture can be covered.
Noting that the past 'steamers' in no small part had names that in the majority were from river's of Indigenous names, and further noting that the RCN intends to follow that tradition with the River Class, and noting further that the 3 Canadian O-boats, in addition to adopting a name starting with "O" also adopted names of Indigenous origin, establishes a strong tradition of showing exceptional honor to Canada's native culture.
The fact that every group can't be names is, frankly, an over concern (dare i say over-reach) in your devil's advocate approach.
Further - My point ??? It is this ... The names I suggested prior were
deliberately new names, in part,
to use Indigenous names that had not yet been used, in part to address the VERY devil advocate approaches such as yours (where I think you over looked that part of my intent).
Now ... on the topic of names - I also like the names of Canada's provinces/territories being used for the Type-212CD class submarines to be procured by Canada. I note thou, some of those provinces have Indigenous origins, and frankly we should celebrate such origins, and not try to ignore it (or put it down) as an English language adaptation, like you inferred. Nor should we put it down because every Indigenous aspect can not be covered (unless of course, you wish to by 2 or 3 dozen more submarines to satisfy all).
I also note that naming submarines after past distinguished surface warships is also something other navies in the world have been known to do.
Having typed that, if one wished to play the devil's advocate for naming Canadian Type-212CDs after provinces, one could gripe and say that is a "USA approach" as the USN for their Virginia class submarines have mostly (not entirely thou) named such after US states. Hence in a time and age when the USA POTUS is applying tariffs and making veiled acquisition of Canada suggestions, adopting a USA approach may (if playing the devils advocate) not be an appropriate approach (naming our subs after provinces like USA does , naming subs after states). .... Just saying if i were a devil's advocate.
One area where I think we agree (although I could be wrong there in your view) is we both believe that chosen names should ideally reflect some aspect of Canadian history / heritage that we wish to honour by naming a submarine after such.