This is a fantastic article. There certainly is a stigma associated with republicanism in Canada that has consistently stifled debate. Speaking as a Canadian, I think it probably comes from the fact that most of us associate republicanism with the United States. There is a genuine fear in Canada that if we debate republicanism, we’ll end up like our continental sibling. Hopefully, articles like Evan's will find there way to Canadians more often so we can have a real discussion on our national values!

The main reason why Canada does NOT embrace Republicanism is the constant example of her other close American neighbours form of government,which daily she compares with her own monarchial form.
Compared to the type of democracy demonstrated found in almost all British monarchy's, the American Republcan idea of democracy appears to come a very poor second or even third rate.
Jack of Bicton.

The author does not give any reason why a republic would be better than the status quo.

The classic, definitive difference between a monarchy and a republic was that in a monarchy, the government was privately owned by the monarch, whereas government is publicly-owned in a republic.

However it is not as though in practice the issue is that the Queen is treating the government of Canada as her private property. In practice she has no say.

And as a matter of symbolism, a republic could not be created by amending Canada’s constitution, because like ours, their Constitution involves a legislative Act of the imperial Parliament at Westminster. Thus any amended Constitution would still continue to derive authority from the Crown, defeating the symbolic purpose of the amendment. For Canada, or Australia, to become a republic, without roots in a monarchical Act, would thus require a declaration of independence as well as a new constitution expressed as deriving sovereignty from the people. This seems unlikely, especially as, in practice, Canadian and Australian government derives its sovereignty from the people now.

Several years ago Amnesty International published a quotation that, if I remember it correctly, stated that 62% of the world lived under a republican system where human rights were ignored.
Maybe our monarchial system isn't the best but where is the better model?
Funny how so many people want to migrate to Canada and Australia.
If it ain't broke, why 'fix' it?

One thing that never seems to be mentioned in the continuing sniping about a republic is what sort of republic is envisaged. It reminds me of a famous Polish joke which asked:

"What is the difference between a republic and a People's Republic?

the answer is:

"it's the same as the difference between a chair and an electric chair."

when the queen mother died, the CBC went to the extent of flying CBC news anchor Peter Mansbridge to read the news from the south bank of Thames - no-one here i spoke to found normal, not strange

republicanism is never on the agenda here - it's the canadians are worried that they'll have to elect judges, police chiefs, crown attorneys, oops, scratch that *crown* reference, district/provincial attorneys and so on

BTW, to become a citizen here, i have to swear allegeiance to the british monarch - ergo, i will never become a citizen. i will swear allegiance to canada, but not to the monarch of another country