When I did the 1/3rd scale Berkut (RC-wise, a long EZ with retracts - See http://homepage.mac.com/mikejames/rc.../berkut01.html ) I had the same issues that Allen has just mentioned. Little or no rotation until a high velocity, lacking elevator authority in general, and the fast landing approaches that go with that. The Berkut setup is the same as Rutan's, with a slotted flap-type of elevator surface on the canard, which I duplicated. Now, assuming the CG isn't simply too far forward...

My solutions were experimental, and were a three-step approach...

First, I tried to fly the airplane with the scale airfoil on the canard. (and scale chord, of barely 4 inches at 1/3rd scale) From past experience, I've learned that one of the "break points" in model aerodynamics (for planes, say between 5 and 15 pounds) is that when the chord of an airfoil drops below about 5 inches, you no longer have the predicted performance for that airfoil. (especially at speeds under about 30 mph) The Berkut would not rotate at all with the scale canard and CG, and ran off the end of a 300 foot long runway, with an OS 1.60 at full power. (Nice engine, by the way)

Step two was to switch to a Clark Y airfoil, increasing the chord by one inch, (to 5 inches) and increase the span about 2 inches on each side. I also increased the incidence of the canard one degree, and "jacked up" the nose gear a couple of inches to put the airplane at a higher angle of attack for takeoff. The airplane would then rotate in about 250 feet, but at a pretty hefty velocity. It had to be flown at full throtte all the time, and would descend in turns, so we had to alternately climb, turn, etc.. We managed to get it down without a crash, but again, at high speed.

At that point there was a huge amount of input from my friends at the field. The most common thoughts were that it was "too heavy", or "needed more power". I believed that it was an airfoil issue. Why? Simply using the "That doesn't look right." rule, it seemed to me that the airplane ought to be able to fly at a lower speed. After all, I did all the wing loading, Reynolds numbers, MAC, CG, stuff before I built it.

So, step three was to switch to an Eppler 197 aifoil, (Thank you, Andy Lennon.) and increase the span 2 more inches total. ( one more inch on each side ) Adding these dimensions, the plane still was very close to scale, and most people wouldn't notice. Knowing that canard airplanes have a wider than normal CG range, and since the plane had been stable so far, I moved the CG back one inch. (not much, on a 1/3rd scale plane) I removed the shims I had used to create the additional canard incidence, putting it back to the original setting. I rotated the nose gear back to it's "fuselage level" position.... That was a leap of faith.

Voila! The plane now rotated at "normal" speed, in about 100 feet, climbed agressively, and had enough power in the mid and low throttle range to "yank" the plane into a forced stall position, where it showed the proper canard performance of settling into a level, stable, "pancake" sort of decent. The plane would go back to normal flight mode by decreasing elevator pitch or adding throttle, exactly as it should. We dead-sticked it, and it landed as well as any similar size plane.

So, this HUGE difference in performance was the result of increasing the canard chord from 4" to 5.25", and increasing the span about 6 inches overall... hardly noticable at 1/3rd scale. If I had taken the advice that it was "too heavy" or "needed more power", I would've been chasing the wrong answers.

Of course, what I did may not translate to your plane, so who knows? But, that's my recent experience, and also my reasoning for thinking that a better canard will solve your problem with no need for flaps. (Or, you could use a speedbrake, instead of flaps, if needed later)