One of two victims who died in an antisemitic attack at a synagogue in Manchester was hit by police gunfire, authorities said.

The deceased victims were

identified by police

as local residents Adrian Daulby, 53, and Melvin Cravitz, 66. The attack occurred on Thursday outside the

Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation

on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for the Jewish community.

A person injured in the attack and currently recovering in hospital was also shot by police, but the gunshot wound was not life-threatening. Two other victims are in the hospital receiving treatment.

The suspect, Jihad Al Shamie, drove a car to the scene, rammed into people and stabbed them. He did not have a gun, police said. A

witness who called police

said he saw a suspect banging on the door of the building with a knife, trying to gain entry, BBC News reported.

While trying to subdue the suspect, officers at the scene shot at him, according to a statement from Greater Manchester Police Chief Const. Sir Stephen Watson.

“It is believed that both victims were close together behind the synagogue door, as worshippers acted bravely to prevent the attacker from gaining entry,” police said.

It was a “tragic and unforeseen consequence of the urgently required action taken by my officers to bring this vicious attack to an end,” said Watson.

The attack occurred in the suburb of Crumpsall, just less than five kilometres north of Manchester’s city centre, in northwest England.

• Three arrests, three dead: How a deadly terror attack against Manchester’s Jewish community unfolded
• Michael Higgins: The same Jew hatred behind U.K. synagogue shooting infects Canada

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.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. administration is set to publish its National Defense Strategy this month at a time when the Pentagon is planning for a leaner, meaner military, and President Donald Trump is inviting Canada to enjoy the protection of Golden Dome defence by becoming the 51st U.S. state.

So, National Post spoke with Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies, to get her insights on American defence strategy and the road ahead.

(This interview has been edited and condensed due to length.)

Q: The new National Defense Strategy is expected to prioritize homeland and North American defence with less emphasis on China and global commitments. How do you assess this shift in policy?

A:

It’s being portrayed a bit misleadingly. Homeland defence has always been an important part of the NDS. It obviously should be the No. 1 focus of any military: defending the homeland. Traditionally, it hasn’t been the first thing mentioned, and I think it will be this time.

I think this will indicate a shift back towards a hemispheric defence strategy, which is what the U.S. pursued prior to World War II. I think there will be a broader definition of homeland defence in the sense that it won’t just include air and missile defence. It’ll also include border security, a focus on drug cartels and drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other threats that the administration sees coming from Latin America as well as broader strategic interest in the Western Hemisphere, whether that’s the Panama Canal or preventing Chinese influence elsewhere, or thinking about the Arctic, and natural resources in Greenland and Canada. I think those are things that the administration’s thinking about and that will factor into the NDS.

But you don’t need a trillion dollars to do those things. You don’t need a trillion dollars to fight cartels in Latin America. The United States has a one-war military, and the war that it’s preparing for is still a war with China. China will still be the pacing threat. It will still be what drives training and acquisition decisions.

Things like the F-47, the B-21 bomber, new submarines — these are not things you need if you’re going to focus only on Latin America. So even if China isn’t the first thing mentioned, even if there is a focus on shifting from a global military to a military more narrowly focused on existential core interests, China will still play a major role in what the Pentagon does, how it plans, and how it thinks.

The big strategic shift will be that Europe will be a distant third. There is an interest in the administration in retrenching, if not in terms of personnel, then strategically from its commitments in Europe.

Q: What are the most critical implications for NORAD and U.S.-Canada security cooperation in the Arctic and maritime domains, given Russian and Chinese activities?

A:

I think those things will become a bigger focus. Certainly, NORAD and missile defence of North America will become a bigger focus for the Pentagon. You already see that with the talk about Golden Dome (missile defence). And Golden Dome isn’t something that’s going to be a proximate outcome just because the technologies will take time to develop.

But thinking about gaps in missile defence and how the United States and Canada can work better together to mitigate the increasing number of missile threats from not just Russia and China, but other countries as well, is obviously a priority. In terms of U.S. interests in the Arctic, I think the main interest is an economic one — preserving U.S. access to key natural resources and to opening sea routes. I think there is concern in the administration about Russian but also Chinese activities in the Arctic, and making sure that those don’t preclude the United States from also operating in the region. So that will also be a focus. Because this hasn’t been a major focus in the past, the United States will have to turn to allies like Canada as well as Northern Europe to operate effectively in that area. So I do think that’s an area of expanding cooperation.

Q: With the U.S. narrowing its strategic focus away from Europe, could this force Canada into being the primary defender of the Arctic? Is it prepared for that?

A:

I’m not an expert on Canadian defence, but I do think that the U.S. continues to see itself as a major leading Arctic power. I don’t think it will necessarily be looking to offload that burden. If anything, I see it taking an expanding military role in the Arctic. That’s not something I would necessarily advocate, but I do think it’s something that the administration could potentially be interested in.

Since strategic retrenchment from Europe will initially be in terms of the ground commitment and reducing the U.S. focus on conventional threats coming from Russia, continued U.S.-European cooperation in the Arctic is likely. So I think there will be an increasing interest in having Canadian cooperation. Certainly, there’s an interest in Europe in increasing European-Canadian cooperation in this area, but I don’t know that it will result in burdens that Canada does not want or is unready for.

Q: How does Washington’s narrowing view of NATO’s Article 5 and reduced European role affect Canada’s military obligations and wider allied cohesion? Do you believe the U.S. would uphold Article 5, given today’s defence spending levels among the allies?

A:

Article 5 has often been interpreted in a very broad way to sort of mandate the commitment of U.S. forces in response to any threat to European allies. That’s not actually what it says. Article 5 is actually quite narrow in its commitment. It requires that allies consult and respond and take some sort of action consistent with their constitution and with their assessment of the threat. So the U.S. could meet the Article 5 commitment with much less than a deployment of military forces.

I think that the administration has no intention of withdrawing from NATO or ignoring Article 5. But I do think that there would be a more careful assessment if threats were to emerge of what type of U.S. commitment is appropriate, given the threat, rather than just a knee-jerk response to send the maximum commitment.

That means that allies will be expected to do more. There is increasing focus on ally defence levels, and I do think there will be increasing pressure on Canada to spend more, just like there is increasing pressure on all allies to spend more.

But I don’t know that, ultimately, the decision would be made based on how much allies had spent. The ultimate decision will be made on what is in U.S. strategic interests.

Q: Canada is pledging to meet NATO’s 2% defence-spending target — do you find this credible, and will it improve Canada’s reliability as a U.S. and NATO partner?

A:

I think more spending would make Canada a more reliable partner and a partner that can contribute more to NATO’s defence. But I have to be honest: Canada’s calculations here in terms of not spending 2% are completely rational. Any threat that affects Canada is gonna affect the United States, and the United States will clearly act to defend its best interests. That means Canada has a little bit of a security blanket, no matter what. It’s hard for me to say whether it’s credible or not because that is a rational calculation.

The Trump administration has used other tools to try to force allies to spend more, not just security guarantees, but also tariffs and other types of sticks that it has used to apply pressure. So I do think that Canada will meet that 2% target. Whether it will meet the 5% target, I don’t know.

I like to say the United States is blessed with favorable geography. It has oceans on two sides and friendly neighbours to the north and south. That allows the United States to do much less militarily and have a much smaller military footprint than it does now. Canada is also blessed with favourable geography in the sense that it is also protected by oceans and it has the United States to the south. I think that will always factor into how Canada views its defence and its spending.

Q: Do you view U.S. retrenchment from Europe and the limited military aid to Ukraine as a betrayal of NATO commitments? Does it risk the alliance’s credibility?

A:

The United States has shouldered the burden of NATO security and European security for eight decades. Previous administrations have calculated that it was in the U.S.’s interest to underwrite the security of Europe. I disagree. If you look back at the founding debates of NATO, many were skeptical of whether the United States should be taking on such a large military role in Europe — whether it would’ve made more sense even in 1949 to remain more focused on the Western Hemisphere.

My view is that the mistakes that were made were in 1949 in extending this broad security guarantee to the European continent as well as in 1991, when, instead of taking the end of the Cold War as an opportunity to retrench more and to think about a new European security architecture that could have included Russia, the decision was made instead to continue to pursue militarization as the main pillar of the U.S.-Europe security relationship.

I’m in favour of a move that would retrench U.S. military commitments from Europe. I think Europe is very capable of defending itself against any threat that might come from Russia.

The Russian military has not proven itself to be all that strong in Ukraine. So, no, I don’t see it as a betrayal. I think the United States has long taken on a much broader definition of its interests than it should have — and that it makes sense for the United States now to ask Europe to take on responsibility for its own defence, to take on responsibility for Ukraine, and for the United States to focus on its core interests, which don’t lie entirely in Europe.

Q: President Trump has pivoted a little bit rhetorically around Ukraine in recent weeks, and there has been talk of possibly increasing some weapon assistance to Ukraine. How do you assess that, given this new approach? What do you expect in the year ahead in terms of U.S. support?

A:

Trump has made it pretty clear that he expects Europe to shoulder the burden of defending Ukraine and that the U.S. will provide weapons that Europe purchases. But I don’t see a large appetite for any more U.S. military assistance that isn’t purchased.

There’s a small amount in the National Defense Authorization Act, but it’s not a lot, and I don’t expect the United States to do more than that. Trump has talked about providing more weapons, but it’s always been in the context that Europe will pay for them.

Trump has no interest in expanding U.S. involvement in supporting Ukraine, although he’s supportive of Europe spending money to support Ukraine. And I don’t think that Trump wants Ukraine to collapse. He’s not going to walk away because he’s concerned about being accused or being seen to have lost Ukraine in the way that Biden was seen to have lost Afghanistan, when the United States pulled out.

Q: So there are limits to his retrenchment?

A:

Yeah, I don’t think Trump will walk away from Ukraine. He expects Europe to shoulder the burden, but he doesn’t want to see Ukraine collapse. If he wanted to just walk away to cut ties with Ukraine, he would’ve done it already. But he hasn’t, and the reason he hasn’t, in my view, is because he doesn’t want to be seen as the one who lost Ukraine. He is concerned about the domestic political ramifications of a Ukraine collapse on his watch.

Q: President Trump recently told U.S. military leaders that Canada had expressed interest in joining the Golden Dome missile defence system, and he suggested that if Canada wanted to participate, it should consider becoming the 51st state of the United States. Do you think such rhetoric risks undermining the defence relationship between the two countries? Could it fuel diplomatic tensions?

A:

Absolutely, it could fuel more diplomatic tensions. I think it’s unhelpful. The United States does benefit from having Canada’s assistance and participation in any sort of homeland defence. It benefits from being able to position radars on Canadian territory. It benefits from having Canada as an active member of NORAD and in any future sort of Golden Dome project. So, in my view, having Canada as a friendly and helpful partner is in the U.S. interests, and talking about Canada becoming the 51st state works against that.

I also don’t see why having Canada as a 51st state would be in U.S.’s interest, to be honest. The countries have great relationships, and taking on more territory is not something that I would advocate for. The United States can benefit from having a friendly relationship with Canada without controlling Canada.

Q: Could Canada use access to being able to position radars for missile defence in their country as leverage in ongoing trade talks and in the CUSMA renegotiation?

A:

Anything that Canada can use to show that it could benefit U.S. interests is something that I think would be appealing to the administration. This is a transactional administration, so anytime it can make a deal that seems like it’s getting something for anything that it’s giving, that is something that works, that the administration has pursued and seems to like. And you’ve seen how they do it with other countries — with Japan and Korea, it’s in the messaging about the deal. It’s all about what the U.S. got.

Q: But the U.S. already has access to Canada and its defence support. So would Ottawa have to actually threaten to take that away?

A:

I think reminding the administration of these benefits and potentially offering additional benefits or offering to shoulder the costs of any U.S. assets in Canada are things that other countries have found to be beneficial in these types of negotiations.

Q: How should the U.S. and Canada coordinate on ambitious homeland defence projects like Golden Dome, and do these initiatives risk overstretching allied budgets at the expense of conventional NATO commitments?

A:

I’m a little bit skeptical of Golden Dome. I think the United States needs more air and missile defence, but I’m not sure that Golden Dome is the way to go. I think it’s quite risky. I’m not sure all the technologies will pan out. You risk spending a lot of money on capabilities that you don’t need and that don’t actually give you the security benefits that you would get from just investing more in cheaper technologies.

Any sort of homeland defence for the United States has to include Canada, because Canada is right there and part of the same territory. So, having Canada participate in Golden Dome or anything like Golden Dome is advantageous and beneficial, and there’s certainly plenty of room for cooperation on the relevant technologies to missile defence, even if it’s not Golden Dome.

I am concerned about the excessive cost of Golden Dome and potentially low returns, especially for Canada, given that it is looking to ramp up its defence spending. It’s not clear that spending on a pricey, risky project is the right move, but that’s true for the United States, too.

Q: What under-appreciated risks and opportunities do you see for Canada as the U.S. pivots home, and what advice would you give both governments to safeguard North America and allied defence?

A:

To me, the biggest threats to North America involve air and missile defence, which I’ve already talked about, cyber, and other types of hybrid threats. I think that the two countries should focus on cooperating in those areas.

To me, pivoting home is the right decision, but the United States doesn’t need a big military or a lot of new military activity in North America or in the Western Hemisphere. So the pivot home only makes sense if you’re going to cut the military’s size, downsize, get a leaner military, and focus on economic and law enforcement, and other types of activities in the region itself.

Border security does not have to be a military task — it’s a law enforcement task. Exploiting economic resources is not a military task — it’s an economic task. So my concern is that the pivot home is over-militarized. We don’t need to pivot home and then use all the military forces that we have in Europe or in Asia to do things in the Western Hemisphere. That’s not necessary and leads to risks that we end up militarizing the northern border just like we have the southern border. It leads to the use of U.S. military forces in cities and domestically for domestic purposes, which isn’t helpful. It leads to an over-militarized approach to the Arctic, which is also not ideal.

So, in my view, the pivot home only makes sense if it’s going to be accompanied by downsizing of the military and a shift to other tools of national power.

Q: Are you getting the sense that that’s the plan?

A:

It’s not clear. There’s only so much that the United States can do militarily in the Western Hemisphere, which is why I don’t think that the pivot home is going to be the pivot home that I imagine.

I think it’s going to be, “Yes, we’re prioritizing the Western hemisphere, but we’re still also pivoting to Asia.” So it’s kind of like a double pivot away from Europe and the Middle East, but we’re going to stay focused on China, and we’re going to focus more on the homeland.

I would advocate something quite different, that also downsizes U.S. presence in Asia, and I don’t think that’s going to happen.

In terms of the focus on the Western Hemisphere, it’s already been more militarized than I would recommend. So, I commend the administration for trying to rethink U.S. strategic interests, and I do think something that prioritizes the Western Hemisphere makes sense. However, I’m not sure that the pivot home is quite as extensive as it’s being portrayed in the press.

Asia will continue to play a big role, and it will continue to be a heavily militarized role, which raises the risk of war with China. And so far, the approach to the homeland and the Western Hemisphere has also been quite militarized in ways that I’m not sure are the best way to approach the challenges that the United States faces in that region.

Q: Any advice for Prime Minister Mark Carney in his dealings with the Trump team on all matters defence?

A:

I think spending more on defence matters a lot to this administration, but any leader who’s playing the defence-spending bargaining game with Trump should recognize that it could be a temporary bargain.

So, really, any government leader — of Canada or anywhere else — thinking about how U.S. retrenchment might affect their security should make security decisions like what is necessary to defend Canada if I can’t count on the United States, whether that’s more or different types of spending.

That should be the goal: trying to figure out what that looks like, and then you can work with Trump on areas of cooperation and meeting whatever targets are necessary to preserve the relationship and achieve other types of economic or diplomatic goals.

But there should never be the assumption that because I spent X on security, I’ve dealt with that problem, because I don’t think that’s a secure bargain with this administration or a future one.

National Post

• Trump says he pitched 51st state offer to Canada again in Golden Dome talks
• Trump’s Golden Dome missile-defence push on Canada leaves Ottawa with few good options

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 newsletters here.

The Liberal government launched a new agency Thursday aimed at speeding military procurement.

The Defence Investment Agency is promising to “rebuild, rearm, and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces faster,” according to a statement from Prime Minister Mark Carney’s office.

“The goal or aim of this agency is to equip the Canadian Armed Forces with the tools and equipment they need at the speed of relevance, bringing Canadian industry into the tent to stimulate our own economy and to create good paying jobs for Canadians,” Stephen Fuhr, the secretary of state in charge of defence procurement, told reporters Thursday.

According to Carney’s office, the new “agency will align Canada more closely with partners such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and France, who already have dedicated procurement bodies, making joint defence purchases and partnerships easier and more efficient.”

Fuhr, a former Royal Canadian Air Force pilot, pointed out that Canada had 220 small- and medium-sized enterprises at a recent defence trade show in England.

“I want to make sure that our capacity and capability … to deliver outside our own borders is well-understood and leveraged where it can be,” Fuhr said.

He indicated Canada will still buy military equipment from the United States.

“But we’re not going to be spending 75 cents of our dollar south; we’ll be amortizing that money out in Canada where we can, and then spending it in other places where we have to,” Fuhr said.

He couldn’t “nail down a target” for how much the new agency plans to spend in the U.S.

President Donald Trump’s ongoing trade war and musings about turning Canada into the 51st state have rattled many in this country.

“There are some systems that we will just have to buy from the U.S.,” Fuhr said. “We’re not abandoning that relationship. It’s going to change and we’re going amortize or diversify ourselves in ways that meet the moment, and that’s not having all our eggs in one basket, whether it be the U.S. or anybody else.”

Defence analyst Ken Hansen said the new agency has the potential to speed military procurement in Canada.

“The prime minister is surging forward with this very aggressively,” said Hansen, a former naval commander.

“I’m just amazed at what an energizer bunny he seems to be.”

The largest advantage it offers “will be diversification for the sake of security of supply,” Hansen said.

“But also, the non-American partners seem to be much more interested in sharing technology instead of holding on to intellectual properties.”

The agency’s first purchase should be weapons that can defend against drones, he said, which have changed the modern face of warfare in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“Absolutely the most pressing thing is tactical ground close-range air defence against drones,” Hansen said. “That is clearly in my mind, the biggest immediate need.”

Germany and Australia have demonstrated a “very sophisticated (light armoured vehicle) mounted gun system that shoots 30-millimetre rounds,” he said.

“They can saturate the air with exploding steel pellets to take out flying objects.”

The ammunition can be changed to take out bunkers or moving vehicles, Hansen said. “It’s incredibly effective and flexible tactical fire that seems to be the need.”

The new procurement agency will only deal with projects over $100 million.

It will be staffed with people from the purchasing branch of National Defence, Public Services and Procurement Canada, and the Coast Guard.

“This isn’t another layer of anything,” Fuhr said.

“We’re porting resources from three departments into this agency, right, so there’s no extra. This is a single point of accountability. So, on Day 1, fragmented oversight is now gone.”

Fuhr called the launch of the new agency “a step change” in the way Canada handles military procurement.

“It requires a major machinery of government change,” he said. “Everyone, even the opposition, over years of talking about this, everyone thinks it’s a good idea, but when you go to these departments to ask for their people, their authorities and their resources, often times they go, ‘Hey, just a second here, we kind of like it the way it was.’ That was kind of my experience.”

The prime minister announced the appointment Thursday of Doug Guzman, a former deputy chair at the Royal Bank of Canada, as the new agency’s chief executive officer.

“Mr. Guzman brings three decades of experience in investment and finance, including leadership roles at RBC and Goldman Sachs,” said the statement from Carney’s office.

“His expertise in capital allocation, project execution, and large financial projects will be instrumental in accelerating procurement and growing our defence industrial base.”

• Canada’s boutique military: ‘Should we not be able to defend ourselves?’
• How a multibillion dollar defence bank could help Canada increase its military spending

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.

OTTAWA — While Canada remains optimistic that progress is being made in trade talks with the United States, Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic Leblanc warned Thursday that Canadians shouldn’t expect trade terms between the two neighbours to revert back to the patterns of recent decades.

“I do believe this is resolvable,” LeBlanc told the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, responding to a question from Nova Scotia’s John McNair. “(But) the relationship with the United States has fundamentally changed and it will not magically go back to what it may have been a year ago or 25 years ago.”

LeBlanc, the Carney government’s point person on trade with the U.S. and Mexico, also said that Canada and the U.S. have many common interests and that both countries are stronger and more prosperous with freer trade.

Interviewed after his committee appearance, LeBlanc told National Post that Canada has a two-track strategy in being open to either sectoral deals for industries such as steel, aluminum or softwood lumber, or a broader deal. “Both tracks are still in discussions.”

LeBlanc said it’s too early to say whether a sectoral or a more comprehensive deal is more likely but added that related issues such as energy security, critical minerals and defence may also be involved. “At one point, there may be an intersection.”

The minister also told the Senate committee that Canada is not without influence in talks with the U.S., pointing to the importance, for example, of this country’s dominant aluminum sector in the massive American auto industry. ”There are leverage points,” said LeBlanc, also responsible for intergovernmental affairs and internal trade. “There are so many lines of intersection.”

While he was careful to avoid any forecasts on what might happen in the trade talks, LeBlanc indicated that the Canadian strategy involved remaining open to a deal with the U.S. on either of the two tracks – sectoral or comprehensive – while keeping multiple lines of communication open with American and Mexican officials. Timing is also important, as Canada may be in an improved position if the Trump tariffs lead to significant inflation for American consumers.

The Carney government, meanwhile, is trying to prepare the Canadian economy for a world with more U.S. protectionism and where trade patterns in alternative overseas markets such as Europe and Asia are already well-established. Economists and trade analysts have warned in recent months that trade diversification, a Canadian challenge since before Confederation, is easier said than done.

Mark Manger, a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Foreign Affairs, said geographical proximity is critical in driving trade. “It’s extremely difficult to diversify trade.”

Although the 2020 CUSMA trade deal between the three North American countries (or USMCA, as it’s called in the U.S.) isn’t set to expire for more than a decade, it is set to be reviewed next year when it reaches its sixth anniversary.

U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed in recent months a wide range of trade tariffs on a wide range of countries, some of which have since reached negotiated tariffs arrangements for their exports entering the U.S. market. Canada has been sheltered to some degree by its pre-existing CUSMA deal, although some key sectors have been targeted by Washington and have since suffered.

Ottawa’s preparatory measures for the new trade landscape have included early efforts to improve ports, rail lines and pipelines to make Canadian exports more competitive, break down inter-provincial trade protectionism, and re-skilling programs for workers affected by the tariffs.

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 daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Warning: This story contains disturbing details

A B.C. man will spend 28 months in prison for the “brutal and prolonged” rape of a woman who will suffer from life-long emotional and physical reminders of the horrific attack.

Brendan William John Sullivan, 29, who pleaded guilty in August, was sentenced in a Chilliwack provincial court room last week on one count of sexual assault against a victim who was 19 at the time.

In his written

decision

, Judge Michael Fortino said that while he accepts Sullivan’s remorse for his actions as genuine, it doesn’t diminish the fact that he altered the course the young woman’s life and “caused her irreparable harm.”

“She will live daily with the pain and discomfort of your offending, both emotionally and physically.

“I also appreciate that you will continue to live with the shame your actions have brought to you and your family and you will struggle with reconciling your actions with the person you know yourself to be.”

What happened?

On Oct. 30, 2022, a then 26-year-old Sullivan was at an undisclosed nightclub in Chilliwack, where, after having much to drink he met the victim, identified only as R.D. due to a publication ban, and they “made a mutual decision” to leave and head back to his place.

Outside the club, when R.D. learned that Sullivan’s home was located in Hope, roughly 50 kilometres away and farther than she expected, she “expressed some reluctance.”

While cutting through an alleyway near the club’s parking lot, Sullivan said he’d be fine to have sex then and there, an idea R.D. said no to once and then again as Sullivan persisted.

Moments later, Sullivan pushed her against the wall before throwing her to the gravel pathway, where he “lifted up her skirt and then removed her shorts and underwear along with his own pants” while she repeatedly told him no.

Sullivan then proceeded to have “penetrative penile-vaginal intercourse with her against her will and without using a condom” for approximately 30 minutes, during which time R.D. kept saying no

“When she tried to call out for help as she could hear people in the adjacent parking lot on the other side of some hedges, he covered her mouth,” Fortino wrote. “When she tried to fight him off with her arms, he pinned them down. The force of his body weight on top of her and the pinning of her arms rendered her unable to fight back.”

As the attack began, however, R.D. managed to text her friends using a safe word to signify she was in trouble and another that read “I f—ing said no. Behind the hedges.”

Upon arriving back at the club, one of her friends heard sounds of distress and walked into the alley to find Sullivan sexually assaulting R.D. while he held a hand over her mouth and held down her arms.

As the friend screamed and pulled Sullivan off, he claimed it was consensual and that he and R.D. were friends, prompting the nearly naked woman to scream back, “We are not f—ing friends.”

The clamour caught the attention of others nearby, including two unknown men who hit and kicked Sullivan until he fled. A bouncer stopped and held him until police arrived, at which point Sullivan again claimed the sex was “mutual and consensual, although he acknowledged he never received R.D.’s verbal consent.”

R.D., meanwhile, underwent a forensic examination at the hospital that revealed “bruises and abrasions around her neck, chin and back, along with gravel inside her vagina.”

“It is hard to imagine a more invasive and violative offence,” Fortino wrote.

Who is the victim?

In her victim impact statement, R.D. said injuries from the gravel, which she would find inside her vagina for days after the attack, have resulted in “urinary stress incontinence due to damage she sustained to her perineal area along with constant pain, discomfort and a lack of control over her bladder” that requires her to use incontinence products.

Aside from the physical damage, R.D. said the rape changed her life dramatically, leaving her with flashbacks, panic attacks, sleepless nights, a lack of trust in people and fears of being alone with men and being victimized again.

“It could not be clearer to the Court that R.D. suffered immeasurable physical and emotional harm from the offence and her life was forever changed by it,” Fortino wrote.

Who is Brendan William John Sullivan?

Sullivan, who grew up “in a loving and supportive family,” had no criminal record or involvement with police before his arrest.

A psychological risk assessment conducted before sentencing, however, found a long-term pattern of alcohol abuse that began in high school when he lost three friends in a car accident, followed by his sister to an overdose.

He moved to Kelowna at 24 and while he didn’t stop drinking, he turned his life around somewhat and lost some weight, gaining confidence, he said, but also making him “more susceptible to the effects of alcohol.” He was visiting Chilliwack at the time of the offence.

The risk assessment diagnosed him with “alcohol use disorder and unspecified depressive disorder,” but emphasized that mental illness was not a direct factor in the offence. Instead, his alcohol use was identified as the main “disinhibiting” and “destabilizing” factor impairing his judgment and perception of consent.

Meanwhile, a pre-sentence report bolstered by letters of support from family, friends and coworkers — along with Sullivan’s struggles to reconcile his own actions — suggests the incident is entirely out of character.

In addition to the prison time, Fortino prohibited Sullivan from owning any firearms or weapons for a decade. Defence counsel had been seeking a conditional sentence, given Sullivan was deemed a very low-risk to re-offend.

• Canadian man sentenced to five years for ‘horrific’ rape of unconscious girlfriend
• From killings to rape, the heinous crimes that could get you less jail time than a Freedom Convoy organizer

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.

OTTAWA — China and Russia once again tried to interfere in Canada’s latest federal election but likely had minimal impact on the vote that was ultimately free and fair, said the foreign interference in elections watchdog.

“While foreign actors attempted to undermine it, it did not affect the integrity of the election. There were no significant security incidents observed during the election, no cyber threats and no incidents of violent expression,” Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) Task Force spokesperson Laurie-Anne Kempton told reporters Thursday.

SITE — composed of the RCMP, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Communications Security Establishment and Global Affairs Canada — is tasked with monitoring federal elections for foreign interference. But the public is only advised of foreign efforts if they meet a certain threshold for disclosure.

In its post-election report published on Thursday, the task force said it detected “small scale” efforts from foreign entities to influence the vote. Those ranged from transnational repression, “inauthentic and coordinated amplification” of Web content and online scams using politicians’ likeness.

But none of the foreign campaigns ultimately impacted voting nationally or locally in a meaningful way, the task force concluded.

Once again, the governments of China and Russia were the two main perpetrators of attempted foreign interference, mostly through online campaigns.

During weekly briefings during the election, SITE warned the public of two separate online campaigns that appeared backed by the Chinese government.

The first was “inauthentic and coordinated”

boosting of two posts on Chinese social media platform WeChat about Prime Minister Mark Carney.

The second was boosting of information

about an arrest warrant and bounty issued last year by Chinese authorities on Honk Kong democracy activist and Conservative Party of Canada candidate Joseph Tay. The campaign also intentionally buried information about Tay that wasn’t related to the bounty.

The report reveals that SITE was made aware of the campaign against Tay weeks before it notified Canadians on April 21. The report says the campaign appeared to have little viewership online at first, but as engagement began to increase, it determined that it warranted advising the public.

“I would say, probably in the week before we came forward on that, it started to move to other platforms, and there was an increase in the number of messages, increase in the awareness of it, and so it was amplified,” Kempton explained.

“And so, the panel felt that it was important that this group inform Canadians before election day,” she added in reference to the panel of five top bureaucrats tasked with deciding when a foreign interference threat reaches the threshold of a public advisory.

Russia, the report said, made mild attempts to influence public online discourse regarding certain unnamed political candidates.

“The SITE TF observed efforts by the Russian Federation to leverage its foreign information manipulation and interference networks online. This consists of a network of websites that launder and amplify Russian government-controlled media outlets’ aggregated items about Canadian candidates and the election throughout the election period,” noted the report.

Despite warning at the onset of the election that India and Pakistan would likely try to interfere in the result, the post-campaign report said nothing about if such efforts were ultimately detected and addressed.

In the pre-campaign report, SITE noted that “the Government of India had been increasingly relying on Canada-based proxies and contacts to conduct foreign interference-related activities.”

Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) deputy director Vanessa Lloyd said all suspected instances of foreign interference were “thoroughly examined” by SITE member organization and brought to the panel of five to determine if they warranted an advisory to the public. She did not specify if any such cases involved India or Pakistan.

But the report also said that foreign interference is becoming harder to detect as techniques become more sophisticated and subtle.

“Due to an increase in public awareness and scrutiny of foreign interference, threat actors likely adapted their tradecraft to further conceal their activity, making it even more challenging to detect,” the report read.

The task force said it did not detect any “significant” cyber incidents or breaches relating to the election.

But it did notice cyber criminals beginning to use the likeness of party leaders such as Prime Minister Mark Carney and then-NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh to push online scams and cryptocurrencies. The scams sometimes paraded as falsified articles made to appear like they were from legitimate news sources.

“The SITE TF observed fake news articles and online publicity with sensational headlines about Canadian elections that were being linked to websites promoting financial fraud schemes,” read the report.

“These incidents are indicative of a broader trend in impersonation of political figures for the purposes of online fraud and confidence scams.”

National Post

cnardi@postmedia.com

• China linked to fake ‘wanted’ poster, repression efforts against Conservative candidate
• Chinese government boosted Carney posts on popular social media platform

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.

Reviews and recommendations are unbiased and products are independently selected. Postmedia may earn an affiliate commission from purchases made through links on this page.

The Iranian government is seen by Canada, and other countries around the world, as a violator of human rights and a sponsor of terrorist networks.

Among its opponents in this country are a large number of the Iranian diaspora community. But those opposed to the regime here have raised concerns about spying and intimidation.

Reporter Tom Blackwell joins Dave Breakenridge to discuss the fears of those Iranian Canadians who have voiced opposition to the regime back home, and how the federal government is approaching the issue.

Background reading:
‘Canada is the most infiltrated country’: Iranian Canadians fear the regime’s borderless terror

Subscribe to 10/3 on your favourite podcast app

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.