That is a true statistic, yes. Without a ton of relevance to the discussion at hand unfortunately. Most of Scandinavia is coastal, and while cold compared to the rest of Europe, has quite mild winters compared to the northern Canadian interior. Additionally, popular in this context is about a 50% adoption rate by household, without much information (that I can find, at least) on distrobution; I suspect most of those are in southern and costal areas, and the (less populated) northern interior primarily relies on other heating methods.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think perhaps you misread what I said (or I communicated poorly). I'm speaking about the funding incentive to purchase a heat pump. The carbon tax rebates, as you say, are designed to break even by or better for the majority of the population; I've got no issues with that. I was responding to the implication that a transition to electricity was trivial because households could purchase a heat pump for little to no cost. There are households for which the energy costs of resistive heating+heat pump are likely higher than their current heating costs, making this not the case. (Unless there are further rebates I don't know about for people who have a heat pump, beyond covering initial costs?)

Saskatchewan does not have "off-peak" electricity pricing because Saskatchewan runs our power grid on old Coal plants. So not only does it get cold enough for heat pumps to not be sufficient here (even during the day sometimes), our electricity is not a green option either. Natural gas heating makes more sense here in Saskatchewan and it pains me to say that. Until such time as we get a green grid (get rid of the coal), natural gas heating is the best option for us.

Edit to add: I will gladly continue to pay the carbon tax because of 2 things: 1. I get more back on the rebate than I spend (my provincial premier is full of it) and 2. If some of that money from the tax goes to green initiatives, then I gladly support that.