From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

Marco Navarro-Genie warns that debanking is turning into Ottawa’s weapon of choice to silence dissent, and only the provinces can step in to protect Canadians.

Disagree with the establishment and you risk losing your bank account

What looked like a narrow, post-convoy overreach has morphed into something much broader—and far more disturbing. Debanking isn’t a policy misfire. It’s turning into a systemic method of silencing dissent—not just in Canada, but across the Western world.

Across Canada, the U.S. and the U.K., people are being cut off from basic financial services not because they’ve broken any laws, but because they hold views or support causes the establishment disfavors. When I contacted Eva Chipiuk after RBC quietly shut down her account, she confirmed what others had only whispered: this is happening to a lot of people.

This abusive form of financial blacklisting is deep, deliberate and dangerous. In the U.K., Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK and no stranger to controversy, was debanked under the fig leaf of financial justification. Internal memos later revealed the real reason: he was deemed a reputational risk. Cue the backlash, and by 2025, the bank was forced into a settlement complete with an apology and compensation. But the message had already been sent.

That message didn’t stay confined to Britain. And let’s not pretend it’s just private institutions playing favourites. Even in Alberta—where one might hope for a little more institutional backbone—Tamara Lich was denied an appointment to open an account at ATB Financial. That’s Alberta’s own Crown bank. If you think provincial ownership protects citizens from political interference, think again.

Fortunately, not every institution has lost its nerve. Bow Valley Credit Union, a smaller but principled operation, has taken a clear stance: it won’t debank Albertans over their political views or affiliations. In an era of bureaucratic cowardice, Bow Valley is acting like a credit union should: protective of its members and refreshingly unapologetic about it.

South of the border, things are shifting. On Aug. 7, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans.” The order prohibits financial institutions from denying service based on political affiliation, religion or other lawful activity. It also instructs U.S. regulators to scrap the squishy concept of “reputational risk”—the bureaucratic smoke screen used to justify debanking—and mandates a review of past decisions. Cases involving ideological bias must now be referred to the Department of Justice.

This isn’t just paperwork. It’s a blunt declaration: access to banking is a civil right. From now on, in the U.S., politically motivated debanking comes with consequences.

Of course, it’s not perfect. Critics were quick to notice that the order conveniently omits platforms like PayPal and other payment processors—companies that have been quietly normalizing debanking for over a decade. These are the folks who love vague “acceptable use” policies and ideological red lines that shift with the political winds. Their absence from the order raises more than a few eyebrows.

And the same goes for another set of financial gatekeepers hiding in plain sight. Credit card networks like Visa, American Express and Mastercard have become powerful, unaccountable referees, denying service to individuals and organizations labelled “controversial” for reasons that often boil down to politics.

If these players aren’t explicitly reined in, banks might play by the new rules while the rest of the financial ecosystem keeps enforcing ideological conformity by other means.

If access to money is a civil right, then that right must be protected across the entire payments system—not just at your local branch.

While the U.S. is attempting to shield its citizens from ideological discrimination, there is a noticeable silence in Canada. Not a word of concern from the government benches—or the opposition. The political class is united, apparently, in its indifference.

If Ottawa won’t act, provinces must. That makes things especially urgent for Alberta and Saskatchewan. These are the provinces where dissent from Ottawa’s policies is most common—and where citizens are most likely to face politically motivated financial retaliation.

But they’re not powerless. Both provinces boast robust credit union systems. Alberta even owns ATB Financial, a Crown bank originally created to protect Albertans from central Canadian interference. But ownership without political will is just branding.

If Alberta and Saskatchewan are serious about defending civil liberties, they should act now. They can legislate protections that prohibit financial blacklisting based on political affiliation or lawful advocacy. They can require due process before any account is frozen. They can strip “reputational risk” from the rulebooks and make it clear to Ottawa: using banks to punish dissenters won’t fly here.

Because once governments—or corporations doing their bidding—can cut off your access to money for holding the wrong opinion, democracy isn’t just threatened.

It’s already broken.

Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Lennie Kaplan

Alberta has the leverage and the responsibility to push for serious reform of Canada’s equalization system

Albertans are projected to send $252.5 billion more to Ottawa than they get back over the next 15 years —a staggering imbalance that underscores the
urgent need to overhaul federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.

That figure represents Alberta’s net fiscal contribution—the difference between what Alberta sends to Ottawa in taxes and what they get back in
return. Alberta, like all provincial governments, does not directly contribute to federal revenues.

These projections are based on fiscal estimates I’ve prepared using the same framework as Statistics Canada’s annual fiscal reports. Between 2025 and 2039, federal revenues raised in Alberta are expected to total nearly $1.42 trillion, while spending in the province will reach only $1.17 trillion. That leaves a gap of $252.5 billion.

This gap isn’t static. On an annual basis, Alberta’s contribution is projected to grow significantly over time. It’s forecast to rise from $12.7 billion in 2025, or $2,538 per person, to nearly $20.6 billion, or $3,459 per person, by 2039.

This isn’t new. Alberta has long been a major net contributor to Confederation. Between 2007 and 2023, Albertans paid $267.4 billion more to
Ottawa than they received in return, according to Statistics Canada. The only exception came in 2020 and 2021, years heavily impacted by COVID-19.

Albertans face the same federal tax rates as other Canadians but pay far more per person due to higher average incomes and a strong corporate tax base. This higher contribution translates into billions collected annually by Ottawa.

In 2025, the federal government is projected to collect $68.8 billion from Alberta, about $13,743 per person. By 2039, that will grow to $127.2 billion, or $21,380 per person. More than half will come from personal income taxes.

Meanwhile, federal spending in Alberta lags behind. In 2025, it’s expected to be $56.1 billion, or $11,205 per person—rising to $106.6 billion, or $17,831 per person, by 2039.

This includes transfers to individuals—about $17.5 billion in 2025, and $28.8 billion in 2039—and federal transfers to the provincial government, which are projected to grow from $12.9 billion to $20.9 billion. These include the Canada Health Transfer and the Canada Social Transfer, which help fund health care, education and social services.

Alberta does not receive equalization payments, which are meant to help less wealthy provinces provide comparable public services. Equalization is funded through general federal revenues, including taxes paid by Albertans. That imbalance is more than a budget line—it speaks to a deeper fairness issue at the heart of federal-provincial relations. Alberta pays more, gets less and continues to shoulder a disproportionate share of the federal burden.

That’s why Alberta must take the lead in pushing for reform. The Alberta Next Panel process—a provincial initiative to gather public input and expert advice on Alberta’s role in Confederation—gives the government an opportunity to consult with Albertans and bring forward proposals to fix the tangled mess of federal transfer programs.

These proposals should be advanced by Premier Danielle Smith’s government in discussions with Ottawa and other provinces. Alberta’s fiscal strength demands a stronger voice at the national table.

Some may argue for separation, but that’s not a viable path. The better solution is to demand fairness—starting with a more rigorous, transparent process for renewing major federal transfer programs.

Right now, Ottawa often renews key programs, like equalization, without proper consultation. That’s unacceptable. Provinces like Alberta deserve a seat at the table when billions of dollars are at stake.

If Alberta is expected to keep footing the bill, it must be treated as a full partner —not just a source of cash. Fixing the imbalance isn’t just about Alberta. A more open, co-operative approach to fiscal policy will strengthen national unity and ensure all provinces are treated fairly within Confederation.

Lennie Kaplan is a former senior manager in the Fiscal and Economic Policy Division of Alberta’s Ministry of Treasury Board and Finance. During his tenure, he focused, among other duties, on developing meaningful options to reform federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. 

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.