Business
Have We Lost the Ability to Build Infrastructure?

The Empire Statue Building was, for its time, monumental. The New York landmark may not be such a big deal these days, but its construction history in often invoked as a sign that we’ve lost the capacity to do big stuff.
After all, the iconic skyscraper’s builders brought the project to completion $19 million under budget, 12 days ahead of schedule, and in just over a year.
At the height of the depression.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
By contrast, California’s High-Speed Rail project – designed to ultimately link San Diego with Sacramento – was authorized in 2008. Construction on Phase 1 didn’t being until 2015. As of now, $11.2 billion has been spent without a single train having left a single station. The total budget was originally in the $33-40 billion range, although it’s now anticipated to run past $128 billion. And no one’s expecting project completion any time in the next decade.
Closer to home, we can compare the original 7.4 kilometer Yonge Line of Toronto’s subway system (fully-functional by 1954 after just five years’ work) with its grandson, the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. The Eglinton line was announced in 2007, work began in 2011 and, 13 years later, completion is still nowhere in sight. Since I live just a few blocks from what might one day become an LRT station, I’ll be sure to let you know if anything changes.
In the grand scheme of things, North America might not even have it so bad. Lately, everyone (and by “everyone” I mean everyone besides my wife, children, or even a single person I have ever met) has been buzzing about a 17,000-word article called “Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated”. I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing have ChatGPT summarize it for you.
The main takeaway from Foundations is that the UK’s excessive regulations, high energy and labour costs, bureaucratic delays, and outdated tax incentives led to an application process requiring 360,000 pages and nearly £300 million for the Lower Thames Crossing project before any work was even approved!
The rot that lies behind Britain’s paralysis has been building since the 1990’s, through both Conservative and Labour governments.
But things might not be so bad here at home. For one thing, we probably don’t have a regulatory bureaucracy that’s quite so extreme as Britain’s. I’m aware of nothing in Canada that’s analogous to the UK’s “nutrient neutrality” requirements.
And while our energy costs are certainly not cheap, they’re a whole lot better here than in the UK. Commercial electricity, for instance, costs an average of USD 0.117 per kWh in Canada, far below the USD 0.485 per kWh they’re paying in the UK. And the cost of natural gas for home heating in Canada (USD 0.038 per kWh) isn’t even close to what they shell out across the pond (USD 0.092 per kWh).
Which might at least partially explain why, despite all the delays, cost overruns, and unexpected service failures involved, some major infrastructure projects have reached a (broadly) happy conclusion.
For every expensive failure (like the Eglinton Crosstown LRT or the Ottawa Confederation Line), there have also been successes (like Confederation Bridge and Vancouver’s Canada Line). Things are far from perfect, but it’s not all doom and gloom either.
The Foundations article ends on a positive note:
We believe that Britain can enjoy such a renewal once more. To do so, it need simply remove the barriers that stop the private sector from doing what it already wants to do: build homes, bridges, tunnels, roads, trams, railways, nuclear power plants, grid connections, prisons, aqueducts, reservoirs, and more.
Removing barriers. Or even better, resisting the erection of new barriers before they’re in place. We can always hope.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Business
Canada invests $34 million in Chinese drones now considered to be ‘high security risks’
From LifeSiteNews
Of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s fleet of 1,200 drones, 79% pose national security risks due to them being made in China
Canada’s top police force spent millions on now near-useless and compromised security drones, all because they were made in China, a nation firmly controlled by the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) government.
An internal report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to Canada’s Senate national security committee revealed that $34 million in taxpayer money was spent on a fleet of 973 Chinese-made drones.
Replacement drones are more than twice the cost of the Chinese-made ones between $31,000 and $35,000 per unit. In total, the RCMP has about 1,228 drones, meaning that 79 percent of its drone fleet poses national security risks due to them being made in China.
The RCMP said that Chinese suppliers are “currently identified as high security risks primarily due to their country of origin, data handling practices, supply chain integrity and potential vulnerability.”
In 2023, the RCMP put out a directive that restricted the use of the made-in-China drones, putting them on duty for “non-sensitive operations” only, however, with added extra steps for “offline data storage and processing.”
The report noted that the “Drones identified as having a high security risk are prohibited from use in emergency response team activities involving sensitive tactics or protected locations, VIP protective policing operations, or border integrity operations or investigations conducted in collaboration with U.S. federal agencies.”
The RCMP earlier this year said it was increasing its use of drones for border security.
Senator Claude Carignan had questioned the RCMP about what kind of precautions it uses in contract procurement.
“Can you reassure us about how national security considerations are taken into account in procurement, especially since tens of billions of dollars have been announced for procurement?” he asked.
“I want to make sure national security considerations are taken into account.”
The use of the drones by Canada’s top police force is puzzling, considering it has previously raised awareness of Communist Chinese interference in Canada.
Indeed, as reported by LifeSiteNews, earlier in the year, an RCMP internal briefing note warned that agents of the CCP are targeting Canadian universities to intimidate them and, in some instances, challenge them on their “political positions.”
The final report from the Foreign Interference Commission concluded that operatives from China may have helped elect a handful of MPs in both the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections. It also concluded that China was the primary foreign interference threat to Canada.
Chinese influence in Canadian politics is unsurprising for many, especially given former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s past admiration for China’s “basic dictatorship.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews, a Canadian senator appointed by Trudeau told Chinese officials directly that their nation is a “partner, not a rival.”
China has been accused of direct election meddling in Canada, as reported by LifeSiteNews.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, an exposé by investigative journalist Sam Cooper claims there is compelling evidence that Carney and Trudeau are strongly influenced by an “elite network” of foreign actors, including those with ties to China and the World Economic Forum. Despite Carney’s later claims that China poses a threat to Canada, he said in 2016 the Communist Chinese regime’s “perspective” on things is “one of its many strengths.”
Business
The EU Insists Its X Fine Isn’t About Censorship. Here’s Why It Is.
Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.
|
When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”
They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.
The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.
It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.
The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.
None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.
Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.
The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.
The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.
Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.
Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.
Become a supporter here.
However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.
The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.
Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.
Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.
Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.
The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.
The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.
They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.
Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.
The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.
The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.
The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.
That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.
The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”
That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.
Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.
TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.
The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.
It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.
In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.
And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.
|
|
|
|
Reclaim The Net Needs Your
With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.
If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.
You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
|
-
Business2 days agoWhy Does Canada “Lead” the World in Funding Racist Indoctrination?
-
Business1 day agoLoblaws Owes Canadians Up to $500 Million in “Secret” Bread Cash
-
Automotive2 days agoCanada’s EV Mandate Is Running On Empty
-
Dan McTeague1 day agoWill this deal actually build a pipeline in Canada?
-
Media2 days agoThey know they are lying, we know they are lying and they know we know but the lies continue
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoUS Condemns EU Censorship Pressure, Defends X
-
Banks1 day agoTo increase competition in Canadian banking, mandate and mindset of bank regulators must change
-
Focal Points2 days agoThe West Needs Bogeymen (Especially Russia)


