Let’s face it, switching sides has become so much a part of Canadian politics that there really is no point opposing it unless it happens under unusual circumstances.

In fact, there was really nothing in the shock-and-awe announcements our new prime minister served up in his first week of power that had not been done before, with the exception, perhaps, of appointing a former general-turned-lobbyist to the defence portfolio.

No doubt Stephen Harper was using a technique known as “taking out the trash,” in which potentially controversial or troublesome announcements are made when the House of Commons isn’t sitting or when the Opposition is in a distracted state.

For the most part, the strategy appears to be working — with the sole exception of turncoat David Emerson, the former Liberal industry minister under Paul Martin who became the Conservative trade minister under Harper.

The public is settling in to accepting Conservative backroom organizer Michael Fortier’s appointment as a senator in order to become the public works minister, who won’t have to answer questions in the House of Commons. There is even acceptance of Gordon O’Connor’s appointment as defence minister.

Amid all the outrage over these three appointments, Canadians appear to have missed the appointment of former Tory member of Parliament John Reynolds — who recently took a job with the Vancouver office of the national law firm Lang Michener LLP as a government relations advisor — to the Privy Council. That means as long as he doesn’t contact a public office holder directly on behalf of a client, he can do everything else a lobbyist does. At the same time, as a member of the Privy Council, he will have access to cabinet documents.

But a nanosecond of patience, please, while I add to all the commentary that has been written about the new federal cabinet.

Although Emerson had every right to switch sides politically, just as the Conservatives had every right to lure him, one really has to wish he had waited six months.

The way in which he chose to switch sides barely three weeks after his constituents thought they were electing a Liberal is an abuse of the electoral process, plain and simple. This is why controversy over Emerson just won’t go away.

Emerson had an aura of star quality about him and the sort of credibility about economic issues that Paul Martin had as finance minister.

Martin was responsible for creating the public consent necessary for the tough measures required to kill the deficit because he had the ability of getting ordinary Canadians to take ownership of fiscal policy.

Emerson had the popular appeal to do the same thing with productivity, skill shortages and other things that continue to dog the Canadian economy. But he can’t be a white knight now that allegations of bait-and-switch are being connected to his name.

Once Emerson is able to deliver a settlement to the softwood dispute — and he very probably will — he may regain his popularity in British Columbia and with many in the business community around the country.

Still, the manner in which he changed sides will cost him the folk-hero status he could have had as a minister of everything economic. In fact, it may have cost him a future prime ministership. Canadian politics really is a story of what might have been.

As for the other controversial announcements Harper made, pollster Michael Adams said shortly after the former Progressive Conservatives were thrown out of office in 1993 that voter cynicism was such that a slow de-election process began almost as soon as a politician was elected.

With the political climate being similar today, Harper might take heed of those words. He came into office with public expectation that this time a government was serious about ethics. Now, the metamorphosis toward the prime minister’s best-before date has begun.

When Harper tables his accountability package in the House of Commons, he will have to defend himself against charges of hypocrisy, situational ethics and Liberal-style arrogance.

He will soon learn what Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney before him learned: a government can’t meet voter expectations if it must constantly be in defence mode, regardless of the veracity of the allegations.

Journalists will soon be writing about Reynolds and his semi-official advisor status with the government. (Let it be stated clearly here: Reynolds was a fine House Opposition leader and a wonderful goodwill ambassador for the Conservatives and their predecessor party, the Canadian Alliance.)

@page_break@Parallels will also be drawn to the secretive, unelected men of influence who have been connected with the Bush administration. The controversy surrounding the Republicans, of course, makes our home-grown Liberals look like a bunch of Presbyterians.

In a few weeks, Harper’s strategists will be able to tell their boss that the fuss over his cabinet appointments has blown over. But the new prime minister might want to be mindful of a bit of historical trivia.

Since 1984, four men — Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien, Martin and now Harper — have been able to ride a wave of public indignation into the Prime Minister’s Office. And, of course, three of those men left on the same wave. IE