Terri-Anne Bowyer is constituency manager for the UCP in Cypress-Medicine Hat. The opinions expressed are her ownIn recent weeks, we've witnessed a mounting hysteria in Ottawa and certain media circles over Premier Danielle Smith's diplomatic engagement with then President-elect, now President Trump. Critics have painted her actions as either promoting Alberta separatism or capitulating to Trump's provocative suggestion that Canada would be better off as America's 51st state. Both characterizations fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Smith's pragmatic approach to protecting Alberta's interests.Let's start with the actual context. Trump's threatened tariffs are ostensibly aimed at pushing Canada to increase its NATO spending commitments and enhance border security measures. While his offhand remarks about Canada becoming a U.S. state and his dismissive attitude toward Prime Minister Trudeau have grabbed headlines, they've also triggered an emotional rather than strategic response from federal officials and many provincial leaders across the country.The federal government's reaction — floating the idea of weaponizing energy exports — demonstrates exactly the kind of overheated response that risks turning political rhetoric into economic damage. Instead of getting drawn into a cycle of provocative statements and counterproductive threats, Premier Smith has chosen a more constructive path.Her approach is neither capitulation nor separation. It's pragmatic diplomacy focused on three key realities:First, Alberta's energy exports are crucial to both the Canadian and American economies. When Smith meets with U.S. officials, she's not undermining Canadian sovereignty — she's highlighting the mutual benefits of our integrated energy market. As recent data shows, U.S. refineries, particularly in the Midwest, depend heavily on Alberta oil. This isn't about political allegiance; it's about economic common sense.Second, the suggestion that Smith's diplomatic efforts somehow advance Trump's provocative statements about Canadian statehood ignores history. During the National Energy Program era of the 1980s, western separatist sentiment grew not because Alberta leaders engaged with American counterparts, but because federal policies damaged the provincial economy. Smith's current approach actually helps prevent the kind of economic crisis that fuels separatist sentiment.Third, while federal officials react to Trump's provocations with threats of their own, Smith is focusing on practical solutions. The fact that she's willing to engage directly with the incoming U.S. administration doesn't indicate support for Trump's rhetoric — it shows a clear-eyed understanding that Alberta's economic interests require diplomatic engagement regardless of who occupies the White House.Consider the infrastructure reality: Canadian oil flowing to Ontario and Quebec must travel through American pipelines. This isn't because of any choices Smith has made — it's the result of decades of federal policies that blocked east-west pipeline development. When Smith points this out, she's not arguing for separation or absorption into the U.S.; she's highlighting how federal decisions have left Canada vulnerable to the very pressures we now face.The critics who conflate Smith's pragmatic diplomacy with either separatism or American alignment are missing the sophisticated nature of her approach. She's demonstrating that provincial leaders can engage in diplomatic efforts that complement (rather than undermine) federal authority while protecting vital economic interests.This isn't about choosing between Trump's provocations and Trudeau's reactions. It's about finding workable solutions that protect Canadian jobs and economic stability. When Smith refuses to support using energy exports as a bargaining chip, she's not siding with Trump — she's protecting the economic foundation that makes Canadian sovereignty sustainable.The real threat to Canadian unity doesn't come from provincial leaders engaging in practical diplomacy. It comes from federal policies that ignore economic realities and trigger regional crises. Smith's approach actually strengthens Canada by demonstrating how provinces can effectively advocate for their interests while maintaining national cohesion.As experts like Peter Tertzakian have noted, Canada lacks true energy independence. Addressing this reality requires clear-headed policy discussions, not emotional reactions to presidential provocations. Smith's focus on practical solutions rather than political theatrics offers a path forward that serves both provincial and national interests.The emerging narrative that Smith must choose between capitulation to Trump or loyalty to Ottawa presents a false dichotomy. Her approach charts a third path: pragmatic engagement that protects Alberta's interests while strengthening, not weakening, Canadian federation.Those who suggest Smith is either promoting separatism or advancing American interests misread both her actions and their historical context. Her diplomatic engagement represents exactly the kind of balanced, practical approach Canada needs to navigate complex international relationships while maintaining national unity.In times of international tension, the easy path is to retreat into political posturing and regional antagonism. The harder but more productive approach is to engage in practical diplomacy while standing firm on core interests. Premier Smith has chosen the latter path. Rather than questioning her loyalty to Canada, we should recognize that her pragmatic approach offers a model for protecting provincial interests while strengthening national unity. The lesson here isn't about separatism or surrender — it's about the importance of level-headed leadership in times of political tension. As Alberta and Canada face these challenges, we need more of Smith's practical diplomacy, not less.Terri-Anne Bowyer is constituency manager for the UCP in Cypress-Medicine Hat. The opinions expressed are her own.
