Sorry - you can tell me what part is unclear, if you are being earnest. If, instead, you just disagree with what I I wrote and are using this opportunity to be unkind, (which it kind of sounds like from the tone) then this space may not be for you. People don't have to agree with my analysis, but they do have to engage in good faith to get a reply. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt today.
Polarization is terrible for democracy and that's why I don't wear a team shirt and blindly cheer for one political party, idea, or another. My concerns are a properly functioning democracy and the public's right to know.
The document Carney signed at the Cabinet table wasn’t what changed the law. That was for show. The actual legal change happened the next day—March 15, 2025—through a much wordier an Order-in-Council by the Governor General on the advice of Cabinet, usually through the responsible ministers. Orders-in-council allow the executive branch to change regulations under an Act, without needing to go back to Parliament—as long as the law itself allows it. Most major laws (Acts) include clauses that give Cabinet this kind of regulatory power. It's how they can “tweak” things like rates, schedules, or compliance deadlines.
In this case, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act already gave Cabinet the authority to amend fuel charge rates through regulation. So on March 15, two Orders-in-Council were signed—one on the advice of the Finance Minister, the other on the advice of the Environment Minister. The key part was: Regulations Amending Schedule 2 to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Fuel Charge Regulations in order to set applicable fuel charge rates for all types of fuel and combustible waste to zero after March 31, 2025.
So Carney didn’t repeal the carbon tax—he used existing legal powers to set the rate to zero. The law is still there. The carbon pricing system still exists. A future government could raise the rate again with another Order-in-Council, without needing a new vote in Parliament. That is unlikely, but you'll see some reporting that the Liberals "killed the carbon tax" and technically, that is inaccurate.
Now, about that paper Carney signed on March 14:
Some people in the Liberal Party have started calling it a prime ministerial directive—but that’s not really accurate.
A true prime ministerial directive is usually a letter to someone—most often a minister—giving them instructions on how to implement a policy. If that were the case here, you'd expect the letter to be addressed to the Finance and Environment Ministers. But it’s not. There’s no recipient listed. The letter reads more like a decree, and it was signed in public, which is also unusual. These kinds of directives are typically internal and not staged for cameras.
And most importantly, a prime ministerial directive has no legal force. It doesn’t change a law or regulation. It simply tells a minister what the Prime Minister wants done—the actual authority to make legal changes still rests with the Governor in Council (i.e., Cabinet + Governor General) using tools like Orders-in-Council.
So bottom line:
That signed letter? Symbolic.
The legal change? Quietly done the next day through the proper channel.
There is a fourth link - but the site is terrible to try and get a correct link to as it keeps resetting to the search default - you can look up the order numbers however based on what I have posted here.
What were you actually trying to say? It was lost in a flood of rhetoric that you accused the government of doing. Want to be better. Be concise.
Sorry - you can tell me what part is unclear, if you are being earnest. If, instead, you just disagree with what I I wrote and are using this opportunity to be unkind, (which it kind of sounds like from the tone) then this space may not be for you. People don't have to agree with my analysis, but they do have to engage in good faith to get a reply. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt today.
Polarization is terrible for democracy and that's why I don't wear a team shirt and blindly cheer for one political party, idea, or another. My concerns are a properly functioning democracy and the public's right to know.
So, how did he do it? I got my carbon tax rebate? Honestly, how did he do it? Did you figure it out?
Great question:
The document Carney signed at the Cabinet table wasn’t what changed the law. That was for show. The actual legal change happened the next day—March 15, 2025—through a much wordier an Order-in-Council by the Governor General on the advice of Cabinet, usually through the responsible ministers. Orders-in-council allow the executive branch to change regulations under an Act, without needing to go back to Parliament—as long as the law itself allows it. Most major laws (Acts) include clauses that give Cabinet this kind of regulatory power. It's how they can “tweak” things like rates, schedules, or compliance deadlines.
In this case, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act already gave Cabinet the authority to amend fuel charge rates through regulation. So on March 15, two Orders-in-Council were signed—one on the advice of the Finance Minister, the other on the advice of the Environment Minister. The key part was: Regulations Amending Schedule 2 to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Fuel Charge Regulations in order to set applicable fuel charge rates for all types of fuel and combustible waste to zero after March 31, 2025.
So Carney didn’t repeal the carbon tax—he used existing legal powers to set the rate to zero. The law is still there. The carbon pricing system still exists. A future government could raise the rate again with another Order-in-Council, without needing a new vote in Parliament. That is unlikely, but you'll see some reporting that the Liberals "killed the carbon tax" and technically, that is inaccurate.
Now, about that paper Carney signed on March 14:
Some people in the Liberal Party have started calling it a prime ministerial directive—but that’s not really accurate.
A true prime ministerial directive is usually a letter to someone—most often a minister—giving them instructions on how to implement a policy. If that were the case here, you'd expect the letter to be addressed to the Finance and Environment Ministers. But it’s not. There’s no recipient listed. The letter reads more like a decree, and it was signed in public, which is also unusual. These kinds of directives are typically internal and not staged for cameras.
And most importantly, a prime ministerial directive has no legal force. It doesn’t change a law or regulation. It simply tells a minister what the Prime Minister wants done—the actual authority to make legal changes still rests with the Governor in Council (i.e., Cabinet + Governor General) using tools like Orders-in-Council.
So bottom line:
That signed letter? Symbolic.
The legal change? Quietly done the next day through the proper channel.
Thank you for the detailed response. Very helpful.
Here are links :
https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/results.php?lang=en
https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=47115&lang=en
https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=47114&lang=en
There is a fourth link - but the site is terrible to try and get a correct link to as it keeps resetting to the search default - you can look up the order numbers however based on what I have posted here.