He said the Canadian Church's interpretation of the Windsor report was the moratorium forbid [sic] any bishop from giving any additional parishes the right to perform same-sex blessings.

In New Westminster, eight parishes were given permission by the diocese, but after the report was released in 2004 no additional parishes were given that authority. Those original eight churches continue to perform the rite.

That defence is difficult to accept for two reasons. First, even if it were true that the Windsor Report (TWR) allows SSBs in New Westminster to continue, why did Primate Hiltz not speak up when the synods of Ottawa, Montreal, and Niagara passed motions calling for SSBs in their dioceses? Why didn't he say, "Sorry, old chaps, TWR doesn't allow you to go through with that" (or words to that effect)? If he had, we might be able to give credence to Mr Feheley's claim that the ACC actually desires to respect TWR.

Furthermore, TWR does not countenance SSBs anywhere in the Anglican Communion. If, for some reason, ACC leaders think that unclear from the text of TWR itself, the primates removed all uncertainty in the Dar es Salaam Communique.

See, for example, paragraph 144 of TWR, p 57 of pdf document:

Because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation.

This is a good place to mention that the word "moratorium" does not mean preventing an activity from spreading further than it already has; it means ceasing the activity where it is presently occurring. At least, that's what my dictionaries say. For example, Collins English Dictionary:
an agreed suspension of activity (Collins English Dictionary, First Canadian Edition (2005), p. 1051.)

This was clarified in the Dar es Salaam Communique, agreed to by all the primates in February 2007. From page 10 of the pdf document:

[T]he Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church 1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144) . . .

Unless ACC leaders have cause to believe that the primates would ask anything less of them, the same can be assumed to apply to the Canadian church.

Mr Feheley also accused Archbishop Gregory Venables of violating TWR and primates' communiques.

He also said Archbishop Venables signed communiques that banned moves into another Anglican jurisdiction.

The Dar es Salaam Communique called for a scheme of pastoral oversight for Anglicans who are "unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or of the Presiding Bishop". The scheme entails establishment of a Pastoral Council that would nominate a Primatial Vicar to oversee dissenting parishes and dioceses.

Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. (See pages 9-10 of pdf document.)

The Dar es Salaam Communique envisions a prioritised sequence of events: first, satisfactory alternative episcopal oversight for dissenting parishes and dioceses; second, cessation of interventions.

Not exactly a "ban" on "moves into another Anglican jurisdiction".

END