As a youngster in Quebec, she dreamt of becoming a dancer. Instead, Jennie Carignan soared to become Canada’s first female Chief of the Defence Staff, the highest-ranking military position in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Appointed to the rank and position in July 2024, Gen. Carignan was educated as an engineer, has served in the Canadian military for more than 35 years, and has held leadership roles with missions to Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq and Syria. In 2013, she became the first woman commandant of the Royal Military College in Saint-Jean, Que.

On the personal side, Carignan, 57, is married with four children, two of whom are in the CAF. Dancing is now just a hobby.

National Post sat down with Canada’s top soldier in early December at the

Halifax International Security Forum

to discuss the pressing issues our military must contend with now and in the years to come.

We asked about her plans to spend the

billions

Ottawa is providing the military, how Canada can maintain its sovereignty against growing aggressive forces, and what could be in store for the CAF in Ukraine.

We salted the question box with suggestions from several military experts, including Michel Maisonneuve, a retired Canadian Army lieutenant-general who has served as assistant deputy chief of defence staff and chief of staff of NATO’s Allied Command; Vincent Rigby, a top intelligence adviser to former prime minister Justin Trudeau and who spent 14 years with the Department of National Defence; Paul Mitchell, a professor at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto; and defence analyst David Perry, who heads the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Q: The world’s likely at its most dangerous moment since the Cold War. Is Canada ready if conflict breaks out?

We’re always ready.

And like all the militaries in the world … especially when we’re looking at our allies, we’re going to be ready to go as-is.

However, we can plan to get better, to acquire and move toward the capabilities that we need in this current context.

What I like to tell folks is that understanding what we’ve been asked to do over the past 35 years, post-Cold War, is fundamentally different than what we are (being asked) to do now, looking at the current environment and what we can anticipate in the future.

Post-Cold War, what we asked Canadian Armed Forces to do is a lot of expeditionary operations — limited objective, very specific theatres of operation — and, again, within a specific context.

Take counter-insurgency, for example, which is what we did in Afghanistan. Sure, it’s all combat operations, but it’s within the context of Afghanistan. And when you do counter-insurgency where you have air supremacy, you don’t need air-defence systems.

We divested air-defence systems in the year 2000 because they were not required. And then we needed other types of capabilities to have a better chance of having success in Afghanistan.

Now the situation has changed. The air is contested. And we absolutely need those air-defence systems, which have greatly changed — the technology has changed over the past 20, 25 years. The systems we need now are layered, and we have to get back into the business of air defence.

It’s going to take a little bit of time, but that’s the example that I like to (use) when we are discussing the state of affairs today, and getting back into the near-peer type of conflict that we find ourselves in at the moment.

Q: You’ve called the White House proposal that surfaced in November to end Russia’s war on Ukraine a starting point for negotiation. What do you see as Canada’s role in Ukraine, should that conflict come to an end?

There will be a need for rebuilding the Ukrainian forces and their institutions and their capacity to defend themselves. That’s absolutely clear.

We are following closely how the situation evolves. We are working with the coalition of the willing, with my counterparts as well, to come up with various solutions — who would do what, in what type of context.

Q: If some sort of ceasefire materializes, will Canada provide soldiers to keep the peace in Ukraine?

I already have (provided) significant contributions to Ukraine. We can go up to 600 members.

What we want to do is have scalable options that dial up or down depending on the demand. And there are ways to rearrange current forces serving in Europe via the NATO stream.

Q: Latvia is home to this country’s largest overseas military deployment. About 2,400 Canadian Armed Forces personnel are participating in Operation Reassurance focused on contributing to NATO’s deterrence and defence effort in Central and Eastern Europe. Would scaling up in Ukraine meaning reducing Canadian troops in Latvia?

One thing is very clear — we’re not going to modify our posture in Latvia. This is a firm commitment.

Q: Canada’s regular force is sitting at 65,677 — 5,823 people short of the 71,500 target set for March 2032. The average strength of the primary reserve is 24,393 — 5,607 less than the 30,000 target. Is Canada prepared to recruit the people the military needs?

Yes, most definitely.

We’ve worked that area very, very deliberately over the past … three years to modify our processes, modernize our standards and digitize our business processes as well for recruiting.

And so, streamlining everything. But that’s not over. We keep improving. We saw some great results last year. We actually ended up overshooting our target by 200 (people) last year.

Q: What was last year’s recruiting target?

Last year was 6,400. And I think we finished at 6,600 of recruited personnel.

The target is 71,500. We need to get back to

full strength

. But we are onboarding new capabilities, so we’re going to need more people. We have room to expand even further.

We’re recruiting more people than we are losing, so we’re going to be catching up to build back our strength.

This year, our (recruiting) target is 7,600. We’ve moved the target higher to go faster in terms of recruiting and onboarding people. And, frankly, this year is going very well. We are at 65 per cent of our target achieved. So, we’re at 5,000 right now, with a few months to go in (the fiscal) year.

Q: Given that, will the equipment you want and the training they deserve be in place? You mentioned the air defence isn’t there.

Yes, we have personnel who already (have) air defence expertise, as an example, for the system that we have, but we are also planning for the systems that we will be getting in the future. It’s called a GBAD, Ground-Based Air Defence, and it’s layered. We have short, medium, and longer range. That’s how we layer an overall air defence.

This year, we are also working the training … pipeline, because if we recruit more people, the system has to be able to train those folks at the level of qualification required.

All of our services right now are crafting and positioning themselves to be able to take the additional number of people coming in.

It’s looking at building new infrastructure, more quarters, more training facilities, improving training areas, and doing this on top of modernizing the training system as well, making it more modular so that the system can actually train people and provide them with constant development so that they get to their qualification level as soon as possible.

Everybody is all-hands-on-deck in doing that. It’s quite exciting, I have to say.

Q: There’s been a lot of back and forth in recent months about whether Canada’s civil service could play a role in boosting the military’s numbers. Could you see civil servants ever playing a role in the reserves?

They could, absolutely

, because some of them already have a lot of background knowledge in crisis management.

Think of a community (that) gets into some kind of crisis via floods, forest fires or other things. You need point persons on the site to be able to gather teams together, provide direction and organize the work, link in with the local authorities and figure this out.

This is where we see potential for public servants who already have that expertise and are already aware of the various networks.

Of course, retired military as well could be doing that, but there’s going to be a need for a whole diversity of Canadians with various skills to contribute to this.

At this point in time, we are formulating various options and submitting them to the government for a decision. We’re going to have an idea of cost as well so that we can actually bring this to bear in terms of implementation.

But also, we are working very closely with our emergency preparedness and public safety colleagues because they have a big role to play.

So, we’re looking at a layered and scalable approach to this. Every crisis is different and requires a different type of response, but the mechanics are usually quite similar from one crisis to another. It’s developing that community resilience, that sense of purpose when something happens.

Q: What are your thoughts on mandatory service?

I’m not a big fan. I’m a bigger fan of voluntary service, which is really the base upon which the military is founded in Canada. We have a lot more success with volunteers than with pulling people in when they’re not necessarily in that headspace.

Q: I’d like to ask about culture change in the light of the anti-DEI push in the U.S. How do you understand culture change through the perspective of operational readiness?

For me, organizational culture is directly linked to high-performing teams.

It is very simple. If you can’t trust each other within the team, especially with the type of work that we are doing, (in) some very difficult environments, whether you’re talking land, sea or air … if you can’t trust your teammates, it is a problem.

Whether you’re talking men or women, regardless of which background you come in with, everybody is different. What we need is to actually value that difference, because that’s how you solve complex problems.

Conformity, as part of team dynamics, can be absolutely deadly.

Bringing a

diverse pool of people together

facilitates addressing complexity, but also requires a certain type of leadership, a certain style of leadership, to be able to get different people to work together.

That, for me, is the key piece around organizational culture that is healthy and allows for team members to perform.

Q: Canada is investing significant amounts of money in defence. This is not unlike the investments that were made during and after the Korean War. Ultimately, Canada walked back from the larger military it built in the 1950s. Is this time different?

Each time is different. I know there are also a lot of comparisons with 1939. There are comparisons with post-Second World War. But each time is always different, and we have to look at what scenario the global environment is presenting to us and prepare and adapt.

There is definitely a realization at this time that our geography does not protect us as well as it used to. And this government is now taking the steps to get us to where we need to be.

It’s going to take a little bit of time. We have to rebuild big systems, onboard new capabilities that we haven’t ever had, such as long-range precision strikes — those are integrated air missile defence. Those are new capabilities that we will be onboarding on top of the huge pace of development in the UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System, commonly known as a drone system) and counter-UAS field, where we also have to ramp up our expertise and capabilities.

So, there’s a lot to do.

Q: North American security was remarkable in the 20th century for being a large zone of peace. Now we have the U.S. talking about making Canada the 51st State, pledging to re-take the Panama Canal, mulling drone strikes on Mexican drug cartels, and recent strikes on Venezuelan boats allegedly loaded with cocaine. How does Canada work with the U.S. under these circumstances? Are we partners or are we prey?

We can’t change our geography. The United States will always remain a priority partner for us. We share the same continent.

On the military aspect, we worked (together) very closely in the Norad context because missiles don’t know borders. It’s a lot easier to work together in ensuring that we can monitor that area, detect and defend ourselves in an integrated fashion.

It’s absolutely key that that partnership and that collaboration continues, and this is what we continue doing via our Norad partnership with the U.S.

Q: Could the CAF do more to strengthen Canada-U.S. relations, such as participation in Haiti or Gaza peace support operations?

We are consistently talking.

For example, for Gaza, we have Global Affairs and CAF members embedded within the Civil Military Coordination Center, the CMCC. We are also closely embedded into the planning of how Gaza will evolve in terms of an international security force, as well as Palestinian police security force. We are part of that planning effort to anticipate what Canada could be potentially doing in that space.

We already have a significant Canadian contingent as part of OP Proteus in Jerusalem, working with the Palestinian Authority on security.

So, a little bit like Ukraine, we can leverage this work to work for Gaza as well.

Q: On the F-35s, straight-up in terms of capabilities, is it the best aircraft for the CAF?

My job as part of this with the government is to provide military advice. This is currently being reviewed, and that will be for the government to decide.

Q: Do you think Canada should join the U.S. Golden Dome?

The

Golden Dome

is a U.S. plan … to cover the U.S. in terms of critical infrastructure.

Our participation (in) that Golden Dome is separate. That would be via Norad, and frankly … we are already working (on) that integrated air missile defence initiative with the various Norad modernization projects that are currently being implemented.

On our side, we are looking at a Canada defence plan as well — our own plan. We need a sovereign plan for Canada where we could embed additional capabilities to protect critical infrastructure.

So, of course, we are working closely with Norad, understanding what the Golden Dome will be doing, but that participation, really, when we align the continental defence, is done via a Norad scenario … with specificities that are Canadian-only, defence of the Arctic and so on.

Take the over-the-horizon radar as an example. We are going ahead with the radar that is going to basically cover a portion of Canada and the Arctic in terms of approach — what could be coming over the North Pole. That is going to be talking to the Norad sensor so that we have a common picture of what could be coming in.

But this is something that is going to be installed on our territory (and it will talk) to Norad so we have a common understanding of the picture.

This is how we contribute to each other’s security via the Norad context.

Q: Are you concerned that no money was set aside for submarines in the budget?

No, because we have another tranche of investments coming via the 3.5 per cent GDP announcement, which is going to be programmed over the next few years.

The submarines have not been costed yet, so we will need to do this work so that we can program this adequately with the investments coming in. That was too early at the time to be embedded into the current investment envelope. But as we program over the next few years, this will be part of that work.

Q: What’s your vision of the CAF funded at 3.5 per cent of GDP?

What I see is a lot more resources dedicated to Canada, which historically we couldn’t do with the global environment we were living in.

We were focused on defending Canada outside of Canada. Now (that) is not the case. So, the

3.5 per cent GDP organization

that we are looking at is going to invest into Canadian sovereignty and defence and in gathering a larger force for strategic reserves, which is what the mobilization plan is all about as well, so that we can actually cover the immense territory that we have across the spectrum of crisis.

It’s all about preparedness and investing in our own sovereignty. So, more people, better supported, more technology to cover the territory that we have.

The second piece is our commitment to NATO. We have committed to specific NATO targets, and then we’ll have to build (on) that to make sure that we are well-resourced to defend the eastern front of NATO’s border.

Of course, the Indo-Pacific is there as well, so the effect we are having in the Indo-Pacific is deterrence. We want to make sure that the lines of communication remain open for trade, for navigation and so on, which is why we’re going to invest significantly to make sure that ocean is also covered from our perspective.

Q: Is the CAF doing enough in the Indo-Pacific region?

We think we’re doing enough. We are greatly (improving) our presence.

We have a persistent presence via our Navy. We constantly have a ship in the

Indo-Pacific

conducting maritime security operations, reinforcing UN sanctions, and working with our various partners in that region.

We are also working closely with various … priority partners in the region on cyber defence and providing capability-building, depending on their needs.

Some of them, it’s peacekeeping training they require. Some of them come to our schools for various types of training. Again, it is all tailored to their demands. The Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia are some of our biggest partners in the region.

Q: The enormous influx of new military spending has raised issues about how to spend it. Everybody must be pitching their pet projects. How can the CAF move carefully to ensure it acquires strategic capabilities that will endure in the future rather than boutique and unsupportable ones that may fail should the funding dry up?

When I came in in the summer of 2024, one of my top priorities was to lay the (groundwork) for, OK, should those investments come in, how are we going to plan for this. What will we be addressing first, and how are we going to move after that.

We worked out the plan for those investments because we were already anticipating that we would have a significant amount. We just didn’t know how fast.

So, when June came in with the $9-billion injection, we were ready. We were ready to implement a plan for what was feasible within the time and what we absolutely, greatly needed to start with.

And that is called readiness.

Everything we (needed) in our normal business — spare parts, fuel, ammunition, infrastructure, housing, medical, health services for our members — this is where we moved as a priority.

We also need a defence industrial base that is stronger, so investments went toward that, and, of course, Ukraine. The fact that Ukraine can continue fighting is incredibly important to our security and the security of Europe.

So, we had a well-laid-out plan for that, and programming in the years following what would be the next steps.

Because industry can’t necessarily flip the switch overnight, signalling now with some investments allows them to build the path for the capability to appear a little bit later.

This is how we’ve laid it out: long-range precision strikes, new planes, new maritime helicopters — these are all the types of things that we are currently working on to appear over the next few years.

OTTAWA — If the road to Canadian prosperity is to now be built on growing exports to markets other than the United States, as Prime Minister Mark Carney has vowed, a major new pothole may need attention.

There was already the existing challenge that diversifying exports is inherently difficult to do. Buyers in any region of the world already have existing suppliers for most of the goods they need, and those vendors have been chosen for good reasons: price, quality, transportation networks, trust, language, and, as in the case of Canada and the U.S., geographical proximity.

But a recent announcement from one of Canada’s most successful natural resources exporters, saying that future exports will soon be shipped to overseas markets from a port in the state of Washington instead of Canada’s west coast, has raised fresh questions about whether some key Canadian ports even have the capacity to handle any more of those diversified goods. Any bottlenecks or other inefficiencies would only be magnified if exporters are able to hit Carney’s recent target that Canada will double non-U.S. exports over the next decade.

Trade with the U.S., Canada’s only next-door neighbour, is done almost exclusively via road, rail and pipeline. Trade with everybody else is mostly through air and sea. Industry and government sources warn that some key Canadian ports are already at or close to maximum capacity, and emphasize that the timelines for port upgrades – like most infrastructure projects – are measured in years or decades, not months.

“The future is east-west,” said Julien Baudry, the chief of staff at the Port of Montreal.

Dennis Darby, the chief executive officer of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Canada’s largest trade and industry association, said inefficiencies at ports and other transportation infrastructure are serious because they mean lost business and jobs. Some Canadian ports and their customers have also faced challenges because of labour disruptions and capacity problems with some connected infrastructure, such as single-track railway lines, that can cause slowdowns.

“There’s not a lot of slack,” Darby said. “We don’t have the capacity we thought we have.”

According to a Scotiabank report published in June, every 10 per cent increase in the share of overall Canadian trade headed anywhere other than the U.S. would increase pressure on ports by 4 per cent and air infrastructure by 2 per cent.

Daniel-Robert Gooch, chief executive officer of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, said an increase of just 5 or 6 per cent in shipped exports would be a problem for a number of Canadian ports.

The association of port authorities said that redirecting trade flows away from the U.S. will require reshaping Canadian trade networks.

Half of all trade that is redirected from the U.S. to another foreign market, would leave Canada through its ports, the association’s analysis has found, while about 30 per cent would travel through airports.

In a recent needs assessment study, the ports association said that its 17 members will need up to $21.5 billion in infrastructure upgrades over the next 15 years, with nearly 75 per cent of that spending allocated to expansion.

“Canada’s economic future depends on trade diversification, which in turn requires modern, efficient, and well-funded port infrastructure,” the assessment said.

The study, which also concluded that Canadian ports would benefit from less red tape and a greater ability to borrow money, was released in February to minimal fanfare. But within weeks, as U.S. President Donald Trump increasingly wrapped his country in a protectionist blanket, Canadians were getting a better grasp on the Trump tariffs and what it would mean for exports, and the need for improved infrastructure.

The Carney plan

Canadian exporters, who last year sent 76 per cent of their goods to the lucrative U.S. market, could no longer rely on a trade-friendly border. What has historically been the Canadian economy’s strength, the integration of the North American economy, had almost overnight become its vulnerability. That led Carney and the Liberal government to try to move from “reliance to resilience,” with a detailed plan to diversify trade away from the U.S.

As government officials pursued a renewed deal with the Americans, Carney travelled to Europe, Asia and the Mideast searching for new or improved trade deals. Ottawa also started efforts to repair troubled relationships with India and China, the world’s two most populous countries.

“Our economic strategy needs to change dramatically,” Carney said during a pre-budget speech at the University of Ottawa. “Our relationship with the United States will never be the same as it was.”

The government also invested in sectors that are export successes, provided supports for those hit hardest by the Trump tariffs and laid out plans to invest heavily in infrastructure, including ports.

But then just a couple of weeks ago, Nutrien Ltd., the world’s leading producer of potash, said it planned to invest $1 billion in a new export terminal in Longview, Wash., about 430 kilometres south of Vancouver.

The decision moved through Canadian resources and government circles like a speeding cargo train, quickly becoming a flashpoint for concerns about the capacity and efficiency of Canadian ports — or at least the port of Vancouver and others on the west coast.

Nutrien met last week in Ottawa with federal officials as the government tried to find a way to keep the Saskatoon-based company using and supporting Canadian ports. A final decision may not be made until 2027.

Officials from the Vancouver port, the federal government and Nutrien would not comment on the meeting in Ottawa or the company’s export plans.

Tim Sargent, the head of domestic policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think tank and a former deputy minister of international trade, said the government’s challenge is that Canadian ports on the west coast are often facing the most acute capacity challenges. There are also sometimes hurdles, depending on the export and the mode of transport, in dealing with labour, the environment and a lack of rail options.

Stuck in port

But it’s not like this issue has snuck up on anybody.

In 2016, Transport Canada published a major review of infrastructure, entitled Pathways: Connecting Canada’s Transportation System to the World, that called for the federal government to take a leadership role in prioritizing trade infrastructure and developing a plan that identifies gaps and where investments are most needed. The report, conducted by a panel led by former cabinet minister David Emerson, also raised the issue of whether ports should be given more latitude to raise money, particularly private capital, not just government funds.

That led to the National Trade Corridors Fund in the 2016 budget, a pool of $3.4 billion over five years for ports and other infrastructure. Requests for support were brisk, so another $2 billion was added in 2017.

But Canada has many ports, adjacent port facilities and other infrastructure needs. And the U.S., meanwhile, a clear competitor in the ports business, invested heavily in its facilities, particularly along the east coast.

Some Canadian ports have been losing business in recent years to their American counterparts, said one Ottawa source who has worked on transportation policy in and out of government for many years. As Americans invested and cut red tape, Canada focused mostly in recent years on ensuring that north-south trade was running smoothly, the source said, particularly after Joe Biden replaced Trump in the White House in 2021.

The lack of attention over the years has had an effect.

A 2023 World Bank report ranking placed four key Canadian ports — Victoria (335), Montreal (348), Vancouver (356) and Prince Rupert (399) — in the bottom 70 out of 405 ports around the world in assessing port performance based on how long vessels spent in port. From a Canadian competitiveness perspective, the silver lining in the report, The Container Port Performance Index 2023, was that key American ports — Seattle (360), Long Beach (373), Los Angeles (375), and Tacoma (401) — also fared poorly.

“It was addressed,” the source said of Ottawa’s interest in port infrastructure during the Biden years, “but we didn’t take it overly seriously.”

But Ottawa says it couldn’t be more aware of the new path’s challenges.

Carney has emphasized the need for upgrading infrastructure at ports and elsewhere, setting up a major projects office to speed up approvals. Last month’s budget included a $6 billion fund to support ports and other trade and transportation infrastructure over the next seven years.

Gooch, from the port association, said he has noticed a renewed interest in improving Canadian ports. “We’re seeing there’s movement on it.”

Despite numerous requests for an interview, Transport Canada officials would only offer prepared statements.

Port officials emphasize that each of Canada’s commercial ports, including the 17 core ports that are managed by port authorities, has its own needs and capacity story.

Baudry from the port of Montreal said that facility is at 72 per cent of container capacity, so there’s room for more traffic. But if just 6 per cent of Canadian exports that now go to the U.S. via mostly road and rail were redirected to overseas markets, he said, the Montreal port would be at full capacity.

The port’s Contrecœur expansion, a project that will cost at least $1.6 billion, is slated for completion by 2030. It is expected to increase the port’s capacity by about 60 per cent.

“Now that everybody wants to diversify, the project becomes urgent,” said Baudry.

The historic Port of Saint John is another facility with room to grow. The New Brunswick facility has two rail lines and has already expanded its capacity, by more than five times over the last decades.

Craig Bell Estabrooks, the chief executive at the port, said officials are optimistic that business will be heading in the right direction in the coming years.

But in the big picture, given Canada’s new goal for boosting exports, there’s little doubt that there’s plenty of work to be done at Canada’s ports.

And with the future of North American free trade very much in doubt, the need to diversify Canadian trade, and rely on export infrastructure, may well continue to rise.

As Carney and other government officials sprint around the globe in search of new, non-U.S. markets, analysts say, the question is whether Canadian ports and other key export infrastructure will be able to keep pace.

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.

The B.C. Court of Appeal has granted interim release to a medical aesthetics spa owner convicted of seven counts of sexual assault, pending the hearing of his appeal.

Justice Susan Griffin heard the bail application from the convicted man requesting that he be released under 24-hour house arrest with electronic monitoring. In

her Nov. 28 decision

, she noted that Farshad Khojsteh Kashani complied with bail conditions prior to trial, as well as the Crown’s agreement that he does not pose a current safety risk to the public. Further, she was satisfied he would not flee, despite ties to Iran.

Kashani, 51, was born in Iran. He studied medicine in Iran and worked as a general practitioner there for about four years, according to the court decision. Then, around age 37, in 2011, he came to Canada with his wife and became a Canadian citizen in 2017.

He failed to meet the English language proficiency required to practice medicine in B.C., and instead trained in aesthetics procedures and opened a medical aesthetics spa, which he operated between 2017 and 2022.

However, in May 2019, one of his clients reported to the police that he had sexually assaulted her during a procedure. Two years later, another client made a similar report. Following a news release issued by the police and subsequent media coverage, five other complainants came forward with similar allegations. Kashani was subsequently charged with seven counts of sexual assault.

In April 2025, he was found guilty of all seven counts of sexual assault and

sentenced to 11 years

imprisonment.

“The offences were highly invasive,” wrote Justice Griffin in her decision. “In some cases, the offences involved: vaginal penetration using a medical instrument, which the appellant thrusted aggressively to varying degrees; digital penetration; touching of the vulva and/or clitoral area; and the infliction of physical pain.”

Further she wrote: “There were hallmarks of planning, as four of the complainants went to the clinic initially for other treatments and the appellant encouraged them towards this procedure.”

It should be noted that a publication ban has been imposed by the court restricting the publication of any evidence that would identify a complainant or witness.

Justice Griffin noted that the sentencing judge said Kashani had no prior criminal record, had generally led a productive life, and was at a low risk of reoffending. “However, given the gravity of the offences, the sentencing judge found that the objectives of denunciation and deterrence were paramount and necessitated a substantial penitentiary term.”

Turning to the bail application, Griffin focused on submissions from Kashani and his wife that “they are both prepared to surrender all passports, Canadian and Iranian, and expired passports. The appellant’s wife says that while one can apply online for an Iranian passport, an original birth certificate is necessary to complete the process. The appellant is also willing to surrender his birth certificate.”

Kashani also proposed bail terms aimed at mitigating concern that he might flee, including 24‑hour house arrest and submission to electronic monitoring. As further reassurance, Justice Griffin noted that Kashani’s wife submitted that she is willing to act as surety, provide a cash deposit of $150,000, and also provide the security of their condominium residence located in Coquitlam.

“Weighing all of this, I am satisfied that the risk of the appellant fleeing the jurisdiction can be mitigated by the additional measures proposed by the appellant. I am satisfied that he has established that he will surrender himself (for the appeal hearing) … I am not persuaded that detention is in the public interest.”

Finally, she ordered Kashani to surrender himself in mid-April or on the date when the appeal is finally set down to be heard.

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

A Jewish couple in their 60s tried to stop one of the alleged Bondi Beach attackers by grabbing his gun, dramatic dashcam footage shows.

Boris Gurman, 69, and his wife Sofia, 61, Bondi residents, were set to celebrate their 35th wedding anniversary in January, but on Sunday they were killed after they tried to stop one of the suspected gunmen, reports the

New York Times.

The Gurmans were on a road near Bondi Beach, when one of the suspects emerged from a car that had an Islamic State flag over the windshield, according to

The Sydney Morning Herald

and

News.com.au

. It was parked near a footbridge leading to the beach.

The couple confronted the suspect.

The video shows Boris wrestling with one of the gunmen and taking the weapon from him, before the two men fell onto a nearby road, reports the

BBC

. He then got up and hit the attacker with the gun. However, the attacker is then thought to have used another gun to kill Boris and Sofia.

The unidentified woman who provided the dashcam footage told

Reuters

that Boris Gurman “did not run away. Instead, he charged straight toward the danger, using all his strength trying to wrestle away the gun and fighting to the death.”

According to a fundraising page set up on

GoFundMe

for their son, Alex Gurman, almost $185,000 Australian dollars, or approximately C$170,000, had been raised as of midday Tuesday.

The Gurmans were the first two people killed in Sunday’s attack. At least 15 people have been confirmed dead from the mass shooting that unfolded during an event to mark the first day of Hanukkah.

Boris was a retired mechanic. Sofia worked at Australia Post. Both were loved by the community, reports the BBC.

Police have described the attack as a terrorist incident targeting the Jewish community. Many children and families from the Jewish community had gathered at Bondi Beach for

Chanukah by the Sea

, an event marking the first day of Hanukkah.

The other victims killed include a 10-year-old girl, a British-born rabbi, a retired police officer, and a Holocaust survivor, with ages ranging from 10 to 87. There are 22 other people in hospital, nine in critical condition.

On Monday, another bystander, Syrian-born Australian shopkeeper, Ahmed al Ahmed, was also hailed as a hero after he wrestled away a gun from one of the attackers. He was shot in the arm several times and is in hospital undergoing surgery to remove the bullets.

• ‘We were like sitting ducks’: How the Bondi Beach massacre unfolded
• What to know in the aftermath of Australia’s Bondi Beach shooting

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.