That was quite the high-wire act our prime minister performed in Davos regarding old-age security.

Stephen Harper’s speech may have been delivered at the World Economic Forum while Parliament was still on Christmas break. But its effect instantly activated the partisan culture on Parliament Hill and Harper suddenly found himself the focal point of a raging controversy.

It was as though Harper had delivered a throne speech in the Swiss Alps to a bunch of millionaires heartless enough to nod in approval as Harper said he was going to take away senior citizens’ incomes.

Even Harper’s own MPs were annoyed with him because they felt blindsided when their constituency offices were deluged with phone calls and emails as a result of the speech.

Coupled with the near-hysterical coverage of Caterpillar Inc. waving goodbye to London, Ont., Harper’s Davos speech was like a call to arms for the conspiracy theorists: now we are seeing a glimpse of the master plan by Harper, the great incrementalist.

Admittedly, Harper is a politician with well-developed machiavellian instincts. But even Niccolò, the old master manipulator himself, made mistakes. And some political issues are so charged, they make the most savvy of politicians back off.

This is why both the Mulroney and Chrétien governments beat hasty retreats after broaching the subject of reforming old-age security. Harper’s speech could have been such a miscalculation, as he struggles for ways to tell Canadians that the retirement system they have come to expect will need changes to ensure that it is sustainable.

Harper’s Davos speech was a classic example of wide attention being focused on one or two paragraphs, while the rest is quickly forgotten.

Most of the speech could have been delivered to the Moose Jaw Rotary Club. The speech mentioned how well Canada has weathered the recession; how its fundamentals remain strong. Yada. Yada.

What all the fuss is about is one short paragraph about retirement benefits: “For those elements of the system that are not funded, we will make the changes necessary to ensure sustainability for the next generation while not affecting current recipients.”

As any political tactician will tell you, it makes sense to go negative early in a majority mandate so that the government can spend the final months before an election making nice with the voters. This is why the Harper government’s toughest medicine will be in this spring’s budget.

Somebody in the Prime Minister’s Office thought it would be a good idea to test public reaction by including that paragraph. The PMO got its answer, and the government has been equivocating ever since.

Yes, there will be tough talk in this year’s budget. But the truly tough measures won’t take effect until after the 2015 election.

This may be half a retreat. But the current government will have gone further in fixing an unsustainable system than the previous two.

At the same time as Harper’s Davos speech, Brian Lee Crowley, managing director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, the Ottawa-based think-tank, published an interesting essay that discussed how politically toxic an issue free trade with the U.S. had been before the royal commission headed by Donald Macdonald sparked Canadians to start thinking the unthinkable.

The need for free trade was obvious. But fear prevailed.

Crowley’s essay refers to the need for a similar kind of commission to clear our thinking about future energy exports. But he could just as easily have been talking about old-age security, because Canadians just don’t want to do the math when two workers are supporting one retired person instead of the current four.

Harper may not like royal commissions because he can’t control them. But he may want to strike one on old-age security. Whatever intelligence the PMO was able to gain through that one little paragraph in Davos won’t be worth the trouble it is going to cause this government.

A royal commission may be what it takes for Canadians to realize that troubles in Europe were sparked by outdated thinking about social policy — and that Canada’s retirement system needs drastic surgery.  IE