I will try to respond to some of your points.
Whether in Canada or the US evangelism and planting churches is a district operation, not national. As you know Home Missionaries are approved by their districts before receiving funding. Having a national organization will not jump start the process.
In my opinion the UPCI has one of the better Missions programs in existence. Currently with the joint venture working as it is Canadian Missionaries receive tremendous benefit. Why change it now?
Canadians may want on one level to be a separate organization however on a practical level there are benefits to remaining as part of the UPCI. A separate organization creates another level of bureaucracy with all of it's attendant costs.
I don't know very many Canadian ministers or leaders who are dependent on Hazelwood for much of anything. I do think Canadians are realists - recognizing that the united thrusts of evangelism and missions that we share with our US brothers and sisters are more effective than what we can do on our own.
It might just be me, but I don't see the ACOP as being a shining example of a Canadian success story. It has neither a great organized missions program or coordinated Home Missions program and remains primarily a western organization with no clear definition of what it is.

And having our own national organization would solve this how? By moving the Bible Belt from the southern US into Canada?
Revival and harvest are local church grassroots responsibilities.

IMO whether it's a partnership or a mission field is a mute point. The fact remains that apart from Atlantic Canada the rest of the nation remains a mission field for the UPC with very few churches west of Ontario.

Thank you for the statistics. This info further reinforces my conviction that Canada can nationalize and still support its missionaries. When I was a UPC missionary it would be determined what your budget was to live on the field and then it was doubled and that is what you had to raise. Then of course you have the percent that supports Hazelwood. I am convinced that a Canadian organization would be much less costly to administrate. As well, I believe missionaries can live and work with less budgets than what the present UPC standard allows for.

Why would becoming a national organization change the fellowship dynamic? Why wouldn't the same "partnership" exist? You would still be part of the UPCI. I think back to when the UPC of NB had withdrawn from an official affiliation with UPCI. My recollection is that UPC ministers were preaching in NB churches and at District functions, and ministers were attending UPCI events in the US. BTW, how many trips do UPC ministers make to Hazelwood each year anyway? Is it now mandatory to make annual treks to Mecca [Hazelwood]? :)

Is she like a Canadian Bishop or something?

I can see the present benefit of belonging to a larger organization. It's like Atlantic Canada being the "have not" provinces that they are relying on the rest of Canada to provide them with the benefits that Canadians in other provinces enjoy.

While I agree that the ACOP has an identity problem, I have to disagree with what seems to be a deficient knowledge of their missions program. I was quite impressed actually with what is a strong missions emphasis with very active involvement in missions on the local level. You can't judge their progam by what flows through Calgary. For example, our church sent perhaps $50,000 - $60,000 to Calgary last year, yet we gave around $100,000 to missions. I think you would be surprised at the depth of their missionary involvement.

In your initial post on this topic, you used the "mission field" example as a basis for the argument that the Canadian churches should be nationalized. In the context of that argument the difference between a controlled mission field and a full partnership is far from being a moot point.

Canada is a full partner in the UPCI, and enjoys a disproportionate amount of control over the direction of the denomination. Canada has approximately 15% of the votes on the General Board, but only represents approximately 4% of the constituency of the UPCI. Canadian ministers, as full members of the UPCI, are eligible for the executive offices of the UPCI, including the office of General Superintendent, a privilege not extended to ministers on mission fields.

There was a moot point made, but It wasn't I who made it.

Is the ACOP a stand alone denomination because that is a better structure, or because its doctrinal distinctives bar it from participation in larger fellowships?

The ACOP is excluded from partnership with the UPCI because of its inclusion of trinitarianism and its promotion of Calvinism, and is refused partnership with the PAOC because of its official "Jesus Name" baptismal formula and its stand for the doctrine of unconditional eternal security.

This hits the nail on the head, and while appetite by and large for a seperate organization is not there right now (perhaps if we go big enough) the way that this is being handeled and put forth is making a lot of ministers upset.

There is always more to the story than put forth.

Carry on Brethren this is interesting.