Keystone talk is leverage, not a plan. Until Ottawa puts binding project clocks into law and removes self‑inflicted bottlenecks, capital keeps heading south. After a Washington meeting on October 8, 2025, the official readout said leaders saw “material progress” opportunities in steel, aluminum, and energy, with teams told to conclude work in weeks, but it did not name Keystone. That gap matters, because the politics moved faster than the permitting.
Follow The Spending, Not Speeches
Greg Ebel has already pointed the money south. Bloomberg reported about two thirds of Enbridge’s C$30 billion capital program is going to U.S. projects where approvals and returns look clearer. Financial Post report. In a Toronto speech on October 2, he set his bar plainly before business leaders, “Markets build when governments establish clear rules, set credible timelines, and make consistent decisions,” said Greg Ebel. That line is a capital allocation rule, not a slogan. If Ottawa cannot show enforceable timelines and consistent policy, boardrooms will keep favouring jurisdictions that do.
Count The Permits, Not Promises
Mark Carney floated a Keystone revival in his Oval Office conversation. Bloomberg framed it as part of a broader energy alliance pitch to ease tariff pain. Financial Post coverage. The primary U.S. readout never mentioned Keystone, which signals this is a negotiating chip, not an agreed workplan. The commercial baseline is tougher still.
TC Energy terminated Keystone XL on June 9, 2021, after the U.S. permit was revoked, and there is no active proponent now. Any reboot needs a new sponsor, fresh shipper contracts, and a full permit stack across multiple states. TC Energy termination release. On the Canadian side, Ottawa controls two choke points it can actually fix fast, the west coast tanker ban and emissions cap design, both cited by Ebel as uncertainty drivers. Until cabinet changes those, U.S. pipes and Gulf Coast demand will keep winning the next dollar.
Carney did set a near‑term objective in Parliament the same day, when pressed on the U.S. tariff fight. “We have the best deal in the world with the Americans,” said Mark Carney. That frames his negotiating posture, but it also narrows his room to trade domestic policy changes for U.S. concessions.
Mechanically, here is the constraint. A cross‑border permit can be issued by the White House, but right‑of‑way, environmental reviews, and litigation clocks still chew calendar time. In the U.S., review timelines are now statute backed, which helps, but state processes and courts remain real gates. In Canada, the federal fix is slower because regulations, cabinet directives, and in some cases statutes must change to shorten approvals. Provinces can help with rights‑of‑way, but Ottawa owns the tanker ban and federal emissions architecture. Until those knobs turn, firms will prefer U.S. brownfield expansions, storage, and Gulf Coast connectivity that throw off cash sooner.
What would change the flow of capital quickly? Three visible moves that Ottawa alone controls, a published, enforceable project clock with consequences for missed dates, a clear emissions cap design that preserves growth projects, and a tanker‑ban carve‑out aligned to modern spill standards. If those land with legal force and dates, Ebel’s hurdle rate math changes. If they do not, the U.S. continues to capture the spend while Canada talks about alliances.
