The Covenant as it exists is DOA, but I agree we must vigorously rebutt the principle of centralization. Let's see what the Primates do with it, since some of the GS folks are already talking about modifying it to cut out the ACC and enthrone the Primates.

Defeating the Covenant in Canada will be a very uphill struggle. The first battle took place at General Synod June past. It took the form of manged discussion's triumph over synodical debate. It was a victory for the advocates of centralization.

I don't think I agree with your analysis of GS10, Rod. The sexuality resolution was a de facto endorsement of the local option framed in such a way as to minimize it as a wedge for conservatives. The resolution on the Covenant, quite properly, referred the matter to the Church for prayerful study, discussion and consideration leading to GS13 - by which time the Covenant may well be long dead.

We have not yet engaged on the Covenant, although my initial review of the study guide finds it a bit milquetoast.

The issue will come down to who frames the debate. If the reactionaries are smart (or cunning) they will join with the establishment in framing the Covenant as a benign and neutral instrument.

We need to set the real frame - that the Covenant centralizes authority in the Communion and undermines the autonomy of the Canadian Church.

Canadians have little interest in being governed from afar.

The notion that the GS 2010 decision on sexuality is a de facto endorsement of the local (diocesan) option is a matter of interpretation. It's not an interpretation I agree with. It's really an effort to put a positive spin on a non-decision. For example, various levels of liturgical blessings for same gender marriages exist in seven Canadian dioceses. Yet at the level of the Communion ( like the recent standing committee meeting) this situation takes on a very low profile.
However, I do agree with you that the issue of the covenant will come down to who frames the debate. The reality is that pro-covenant forces have already framed the issue as a vote against the covenant is a vote against the Communion. The management of the sexuality issue at Canada's GS 2010 has set a precedent for dealing with controversial issues in the future. There is not much point in trying to elect progressives to General Synod 2013 if open debate and an up and down vote on the covenant are not in the cards.

If there are memorials from dioceses opposing the Covenant, that will undermine any attempt to "sneak through" passage. And we have a useful ally in Canon Perry from Montreal.

I agree that the milquetoasts will cast it as a vote for or against the Communion - and if the reactionaries are smart, they'll co-operate in that. We need to counter that meme by pointing out that it is a vote for an Anglican Communion that is completely different than the Anglican Communion we have known - an Anglican Communion is which other Provinces have the power to forbid us from discerning God's will, in which ordained women will be gradually marginalized and in which the voiced of the laity will be stifled if not silenced,

To use an analogy that Canadians (and Australians and New Zealanders) will appreciate, would you want to belong to a Commonwealth where Zimbabwe had the power to say what the government of Canada could or could not do?

In order for motions that originate as memorials to get on the floor, there must be a debate in the first place, and such motions must be of the "same mind" as any motions as those that may originate from the committee structure and get debated first. Several motions were withdrawn at the last GS and at least one ruled out of order by the chair as a result as part and parcel of accommodating initiatives from within the structure. Vast swaths of the Canadian church, the prairies where you are Malcolm , the North, Atlantic Canada are fairly conservative on the sexuality issue. I expect these regions, places outside urbania, to emotionally attached to an old fashioned idea of the Communion and not easily convinced to vote against the covenant. The desire by church leadership to avoid controversy is also a significant vector in my opinion.