[TColvin]

The British position is well-understood as being divided into two warring camps:
1. There was the Churchill-Alexander-Anderson school of thought that said you needed a slow Infantry tank with heavy armour to support the infantry in creating a breakthrough, and then the armoured divisions equipped with lightly armoured and fast cruiser tanks would pass through the gap and exploit. Therefore you had the Tank Brigades with Matilda II/Valentines/Churchills, and Armoured Brigades with Crusader/Sherman/Cromwell.
2. There was the God-Almighty Monty school of thought, that argued all you needed were Armoured Brigades equipped with a Universal Tank that would support the infantry in the breakthrough and provide exploitation. The Universal Tank in the indistinguishable Armoured Brigades required a 75-mm gun, automotive reliability and reasonable speed. Tank Brigades and the Churchill Tank could therefore be abolished, and Monty insisted he wanted neither.

Oftentimes Monty got his way; he took no Churchills to Sicily, and he kept trying to get rid of them in NW Europe. He had public arguments with Churchill about this in front of journalists - see the spat during the visit to Simonds in the Reichswald on March 4, 1945.

Until now it has been believed that the Canadians contributed nothing to this debate, but the information you are supplying raises possibilities. It has been assumed that the Ram was an early Sherman Cruiser, but it wasn't - the Sherman was probably a late Ram, and I believe the similar shape is no coincidence. By this I mean the Ram might have been conceived as a Universal Tank by McNaughton, who looks like he made no distinction between a Churchill and a Ram as early as August 1942. He would therefore have used Rams at Dieppe instead of Churchills. McNaughton obviously believed that there was no need for both Tank and Armoured Brigades with both Infantry and Cruiser tanks. Perhaps McNaughton, with his extraordinary reputation for brilliance, put this idea into Monty's head. The two met frequently before Monty went to Egypt, and Monty sucked up other's ideas such as those of Liddell-Hart.

What I believe needs explaining is why the Canadians fought in NW Europe without the Churchill Infantry Tank. In Italy they were sometimes supported by Churchills, and the NIH was given the right to wear the Maple leaf because of good support.

But in NW Europe the Canadians never asked for Churchills, and seemed quite content with their own Shermans. This cost them dearly in blood, especially in the Hochwald, but they never seemed to complain. Crerar and Simonds listened to Monty and Churchill arguing hammer and tongs about the Churchill Tank as if it had nothing to do with them. But perhaps they sincerely believed in Monty's side of the argument because Monty had got it from their McNaughton.

BTW, 1 CATB was switching to Rams per McNaughton's directives when it was ordered to Sicily. It then switched to Shermans because, I believe, the Ram lacked a 75-mm.
I would have to see evidence before believing cost had anything to do with Canadian preference for the Ram and Sherman over the Churchill. Did you know the Czech Independent Tank Brigade was equipped with Churchills, and Churchills entered Prague from the West as T 34s and IS-2s entered from the East? No. I think nations got what they asked for, providing the equipment wasn't in short supply. And for many months in 1944 Shermans were in short supply, and the Rams were operating as Kangaroos, and there was a surplus of Churchills. If the Canadians had wanted Churchills they would have taken them either for reconstituted Tank Brigades, or they would have asked for the Churchills of British Tank Brigades to support them.