Saturday, March 22 With the launch of the Conservative election platform, the so-called "fight for the right" has begun in earnest. But while the Tories' headline-grabbing proposals for tax cuts are clearly aimed at recapturing support from Reform, the party has also quietly opened up a second front. With a package of measures promising a more assertive federal stance in dealing with the provinces, the platform stakes a claim to what has historically been Liberal turf, positioning the Tories as defenders of a strong central government.

At first glance, this may seem hard to accept: the document can also be read to suggest a further decentralization of authority. There is plenty of the usual forelock-tugging about "working together with the provinces," along with Meech-style arrangements for provincial input into key federal appointments, including the Senate. Some responsibilities would be passed down to the provinces, notably job training. A casual reader might conclude that the Conservatives were enthusiasts for devolution, much like Reform -- indeed, much like the Liberals, in their current incarnation.

But look closer. The provinces will only be "invited to recommend" names for appointments to important national agencies such as the Bank of Canada or the National Energy Board: no mention of the federal government being obliged to accept their suggestions. The areas in which provinces are to be given more responsibilities are no more than the usual list -- forestry, mining, agriculture and the like. Even the job training hand-off is only to take place "provided certain common standards can be met." All in all, it's pretty slim pickings.

In three major campaign planks, moreover, the Tories suggest they are willing to challenge the drift to devolution. Of these, the most innovative is the proposed Canadian Covenant. This, too, has been interpreted as an abdication of federal authority, in as much as it proposes to convert federal cash transfers to the provinces for social programs into tax points of equal value. But it is equally possible to argue for the opposite view.

The issue of federal "intrusion" on provincial jurisdiction over social programs has been the subject of years of debate. Consider, in this light, what is not implied by the Conservative plan. It does not amount to abolishing federal transfers, as some have long suggested. It does not merely convert these transfers to tax points. It does not leave national standards to be negotiated among the provinces. Nor does it continue with the status quo.

Rather, it does all of these things. The transfers would be converted to tax points, on the condition that the provinces signed on to a battery of national standards, including penalties for non-compliance. They'd be invited to negotiate these, of course. But if there is no agreement, or if the standards aren't to the federal government's liking, the present Canada Health and Social Transfer, and the conditions attached to it, stays in place.

If anything, the Tory scheme holds the potential to cement national standards more securely. As it is, Ottawa exerts less and less leverage with each passing year, as federal transfers dwindle. But the prospect of getting their hands on those valuable tax points offers a hefty incentive for provincial compliance.

The second major plank is the proposed federal Inter-Provincial Trade Commission, "to regulate and enforce the rules of inter-provincial trade." By now, everyone knows that the Agreement on Internal Trade, negotiated among the provinces just three years ago, has proven a complete failure, leaving hundreds of internal trade restrictions intact. Yet the Tories are the first party to make any concrete proposal to put a stop to this enduring national disgrace.

The ITPC's precise shape would be negotiated as part of the Canadian Covenant, but the Tories promise it will have legal powers to strike down provincial trade barriers, such as local residency requirements. This is rich with potential. Students of American history will know that the power to regulate internal trade was critical to the rise of federal authority over the states. The ITPC may be just the thing we need to do the same trick here: a sort of federalist Trojan Horse.

The third part of the Tory offensive would push the federal government gingerly into the field of primary and secondary education. Canada is the only developed country without a national education policy. The Tories would start to remedy that, through the entirely appropriate -- and entirely legal -- vehicle of national testing. This is just the sort of standard-setting role, allowing provincial education systems to be compared in meaningful ways, to which the federal government is best suited.

It is a fascinating combination: on the one hand, tax cuts and limited government, and on the other, a stronger federal authority. Perhaps the Tories' focus-group research is telling them that there is a constituency for both messages: neo-conservative, neo-Trudeauist. The Liberals should watch their backs as much as Reformers.