Many Canadians remain completely unaware of a deeply troubling situation involving powerful political connections, government-backed advantages, and the exploitation of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program by a major private delivery company. @melaniejoly

Intelcom Express, now operating as Dragonfly Shipping outside Quebec, is one of Canada's largest last-mile delivery providers, handling hundreds of thousands of packages every day for Amazon and other major online retailers. The company is led by Jean-Sébastien Joly, who serves as president and chief executive officer. He is the brother of Mélanie Joly, a senior Liberal cabinet minister who has held some of the most influential positions in the federal government, including Minister of Canadian Heritage, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and currently Minister of Industry and Economic Development. In these roles, she has direct influence over policies related to transportation, business growth, immigration, labor markets, and even postal services.

The connections go back decades. In 2001, Canada Post, a government-owned Crown corporation, invested one million dollars to acquire a fifty percent stake in Intelcom. This deal happened at a time when Intelcom was a major donor to the Liberal Party, and its founder had close fundraising ties to the party's Quebec wing. The president of that wing was Clément Joly, the father of Jean-Sébastien Joly and Mélanie Joly. Critics at the time raised serious questions about favoritism, as the investment appeared to benefit a politically connected company over others. Although Canada Post later sold its stake, Intelcom continued to receive support from government-linked investors like the Business Development Bank of Canada and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, which helped fuel its rapid expansion.

Intelcom has aggressively taken over major Amazon delivery contracts, often handling routes that once went through public services like Canada Post, which has faced billions in losses and repeated operational challenges. This shift has allowed private firms to profit from e-commerce growth while the public postal system struggles.

The most alarming part is how Intelcom benefits from the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. This program lets employers hire workers from abroad when they claim no qualified Canadians are available for the jobs. Delivery driver and warehouse roles at companies like Intelcom are demanding, with long hours, physical labor, and wages typically around twenty-three to twenty eight dollars per hour according to Statistics Canada. Yet the program provides access to lower cost labor that reduces overall expenses through lower turnover, fewer benefits, and easier filling of positions that might otherwise require higher pay to attract local workers. Official government data from Employment and Social Development Canada shows thousands of positive Labour Market Impact Assessment approvals each year in transportation and logistics, with over fifty thousand positions approved across Canada in recent quarters alone. While exact totals for Intelcom are not always aggregated publicly, the company appears in these lists for delivery-related roles, and with over three thousand employees and contractors, these approvals translate into substantial cost savings that directly support profitability and growth in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

The conflict of interest here is undeniable and outrageous. A cabinet minister with such family ties sits in a government that sets the rules for labor immigration, postal outsourcing, and business support rules that directly enable companies like her brother's to thrive. Mélanie Joly has implemented a recusal process, stating she avoids any involvement in matters related to Intelcom or Amazon, with her staff and officials ensuring she is not briefed on them. But this does little to erase the appearance of favoritism, especially when the broader Liberal government environment has allowed privatization and program access that undercuts public services and suppresses wages for Canadians.

Canadians pay taxes that fund public institutions like Canada Post and labor programs meant to address genuine shortages, yet a private company with these deep political connections profits by accessing cheap foreign labor, driving down job quality, and competing unfairly against the public system. Delivery service complaints about delays, damaged packages, and unsafe practices have become widespread, but accountability remains low because replacing workers would be far more expensive. This entire setup reeks of privilege and insider advantage, where family links to power bend the system in favor of a few at the expense of ordinary Canadians facing job competition, higher costs, and unreliable services.

This is not just a business story; it is a clear example of how political connections can distort fairness and erode trust in government. Canadians deserve full transparency and strong safeguards to prevent such conflicts from ever happening again. This is clearly a family business handed down from daddy Joly. This is just outrageous corruption.

The Conservative Party of Canada’s @CPC_HQ refusal to speak up on the Universal Ostrich Farm crisis in Edgewood, British Columbia, where nearly 400 healthy ostriches face a brutal cull due to an avian flu outbreak, appears to be a shameful display of political cowardice and self serving ambition that leaves thousands of outraged Canadians ignored and dismissed. Despite a firestorm of public outcry, with countless voices flooding social media platforms like X with desperate pleas to save these animals, the party’s leadership, under Pierre Poilievre, @PierrePoilievre seems content to sit in spineless silence, apparently prioritizing their polished image over any semblance of moral courage. The farm’s owners, backed by impassioned supporters and even international figures, argue these ostriches are healthy and could serve as vital research subjects for avian flu resistance, yet the Conservatives appear to be hiding behind their desks, seemingly unwilling to challenge the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s cold bureaucratic mandate or the federal courts’ rulings that seem to rubber stamp it. This silence, in the face of such a visceral public demand for action, looks like a calculated betrayal of the very principles of fairness and government accountability the party claims to champion.

The public’s fury is palpable, with comments on X painting the Conservatives as utterly gutless, with one user calling them “cowardly crickets chirping in the shadows,” a scathing jab that seems to capture the party’s apparent refusal to engage with an issue that has sparked protests, petitions, and even reported threats against those linked to the cull. Another commenter branded them “spineless opportunists too scared to upset their precious polling numbers,” a sentiment that appears to echo the growing perception that the party is more concerned with electoral math than the lives of innocent animals or the anguish of their supporters. The Conservatives’ failure to even acknowledge the thousands of Canadians begging for their intervention looks like a deliberate snub, as if the party believes the public’s pain is too trivial to warrant a response. Even when Conservative MP Mel Arnold raised the issue in Parliament, his tepid question about “collaboration” with the agriculture sector seems like a pathetic half measure, apparently designed to placate locals in his Kamloops Shuswap Central Rockies riding without committing the party to anything meaningful. This feeble gesture only underscores what appears to be a broader strategy of evasion and apathy.

The party’s silence grows more indefensible when you consider the escalating tensions in Edgewood, where protests have led to arrests and a suspicious fire at a hay bale corral linked to the CFIA, suggesting a community pushed to the brink by what seems like government overreach. Yet the Conservatives, who often posture as defenders of individual rights against heavy handed state power, appear to be cowering from the fight, seemingly afraid to touch an issue that could expose them to criticism from either side. Their refusal to engage looks like a betrayal of their own rhetoric, leaving supporters who expected bold leadership to feel abandoned and mocked. One X user’s comment, “The Conservatives are just a bunch of suits dodging anything that doesn’t guarantee votes,” seems to cut to the heart of the matter, painting a picture of a party that appears to value power over principle. Another user didn’t hold back, calling them “heartless cowards who’d rather let 400 ostriches die than risk a bad headline,” a brutal assessment that seems to resonate with the growing chorus of disgust.

This apparent refusal to act or even speak on the issue, despite the Supreme Court’s interim stay on September 24, 2025, pausing the cull, looks like a masterclass in political spinelessness. The Conservatives seem to be banking on the issue fading away, apparently hoping Canadians will forget their failure to stand up for what many see as a clear injustice. Their silence in the face of such a charged and emotional crisis appears to expose a party more interested in maintaining a slick, disciplined image than in addressing the real pain of their constituents. The public’s scathing remarks, like one X post labeling them “a disgraceful pack of do nothing politicians who’d sell their souls for a poll bump,” seem to reflect a deep sense of betrayal. The Conservatives’ apparent decision to let these ostriches face slaughter without so much as a whisper of support looks like a moral failure, a humiliating abdication of leadership that leaves them open to accusations of being callous, self absorbed, and utterly disconnected from the people they claim to represent. Their silence seems to scream louder than the protests themselves, painting a damning portrait of a party that appears to care more about its own political hide than the lives of 400 innocent animals or the thousands of Canadians pleading for action. Like what kind of an opposition coward you have to be that you can’t even speak up about 400 innocent ostriches that are about to be slaughtered by the government that you’re apparently against. It’s pathetic and it’s exposing of a person that is nothing more than a fraud and a phony. Canadians deserve better than fake losers showing their true colors.

Kevin Chan, once the head of public policy at Facebook Canada, occupies a pivotal position at the intersection of corporate influence and political power in Canada, particularly amid rising concerns over foreign election interference. His extensive connections rooted in a past as policy director for Michael Ignatieff, the former Liberal Party leader, and frequent interactions with senior Liberal cabinet members illustrate a figure deeply entrenched in the political landscape of Ottawa.

The scrutiny surrounding Chan intensified when he faced criticism for not registering as a lobbyist despite engaging regularly with influential figures like Finance Minister Bill Morneau. This raises questions about the fine line between legitimate policy advocacy and potential undue influence, a boundary increasingly blurred in modern Canadian politics.

Against the backdrop of allegations regarding foreign interference in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections, Chan’s attendance at high-profile political events gains an unsettling significance. Notably, his presence at a 2016 steak dinner hosted by Joe Biden, an event he publicly documented, suggests a level of access typically reserved for individuals wielding considerable influence or financial resources. This relationship hints at a closeness to the Liberal Party that transcends mere professional interaction.

A letter from Mylène Gigou, Senior Director at the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, thanking Chan for his cooperation during the 44th federal election, while seemingly innocuous, must be examined within the broader context of the election interference allegations. Investigations revealed attempts by foreign entities, particularly China, to sway election outcomes, including financial support to candidates. While there’s no direct evidence linking Chan to these specific acts of interference at this time, his role in navigating the intersection of social media policy and political influence places him in a sensitive position.

The inquiry into foreign meddling, particularly the targeting of eleven candidates in the 2019 election through financial channels from China, illustrates a complex strategy of influence that could extend to various forms of political engagement, potentially including the interactions in which Chan is involved. Although the inquiry concluded that such efforts did not significantly alter electoral outcomes, the existence of these activities casts a shadow over individuals or organizations capable of influencing political discourse.

Thus, Chan's interactions must be viewed with skepticism. His refusal to register as a lobbyist, his meetings with cabinet ministers, and his attendance at influential events contribute to a narrative of access that, while not explicitly illegal, raises ethical concerns. In a climate where the integrity of elections and the influence of foreign entities are under scrutiny, figures like Chan who operate at the crossroads of technology, policy, and politics embody the intricate challenges modern democracies face.

This situation not only calls into question the propriety of Chan's engagements but also emphasizes the urgent need for transparency in how technology firms engage with governments, particularly during election cycles. The case of Kevin Chan serves to highlighting the potential for corporate-political relationships to inadvertently undermine democratic processes in an era where the threats of information warfare and foreign interference are not merely theoretical but documented realities.

Story to be continued….

@LarryBrockMP @MikeBarrettON @MichaelCooperMP @reicurran While he colludes with the top people at elections Canada sending him praising letters. Why is Kevin Chan attending all these taxpayer-funded events and who paid for Kevin steak dinner in 2016 posting Joe Biden?

https://x.com/votecanadacom/status/1836482875841220772?s=46&t=JBPayFh4yGV3_7Ywr-vFyg