Rival MLAs clash during carbon tax meeting

A run of the mill legislative committee meeting to talk about Alberta’s economic future Thursday devolved into a carbon tax argument complete with verbal fisticuffs between two rival MLAs in the hallway of Edmonton’s federal building.

It all stemmed from a seemingly innocuous goal — to launch an inquiry into Alberta’s economic situation.

The first inquiry idea was put forward by Leduc-Beaumont NDP MLA Shaye Anderson, who proposed zeroing in on the agrifood and agribusiness sectors to try and find ways to kick-start Alberta’s flailing economy. Anderson said he’s passionate about the sectors and thinks it holds an “incredible opportunity” for Alberta to diversify and grow.

While the all-party committee unanimously agreed it was a great focus area, opposition members said there should be a fulsome list of ideas on the table before deciding where the committee should focus its energies. After all, they argued, Anderson’s proposal was the first one on the table.

When their concerns went nowhere, opposition members said, fine, but let’s also look at how the carbon tax will affect the agrifood and agribusiness sectors when it kicks in on Jan. 1.

It was at that point the discussion turned into one about the carbon tax and its impact on Alberta, and sniping between Calgary-Foothills Wildrose MLA Prasad Panda and Anderson began — something they carried out into the hallway during a recess, voices raised in heated discussion.

Back at the table, where tempers cooled, an hour-long discussion about how the carbon tax will hit the agricultural sector ended with NDP members voting against a motion to examine the economic impact of carbon pricing on food production and promotion in Canada.

Neither Panda nor Anderson wanted to revisit their argument after the meeting, both shrugging off the confrontation.

Anderson said he wasn’t surprised talk turned to the carbon tax. “It’s a hot-button topic,” he said. Panda, on the other hand, said it was unfortunate only Anderson’s proposal was heard, and that government members “used their majority to fix the subject” without considering other ideas.

“They didn’t even give us opportunity to make … reasonable, common-sense amendments that would have made that motion even better,” Panda said.

“I came to this meeting with an open mind thinking we’d debate all the ideas and pick up the right topics. We lost that opportunity.”