No, I don't think that's fair, Mr. Murphy. Technically, I want to know what we're voting on. I do also have some policy concerns. But I do see what you're trying to do. You're trying to give a trier of facts some discretion to go somewhere between zero and 25 years on a subsequent conviction. I think it's admirable that you see some possibility where a judge might not use his discretion to give the additional 25 years when given the choice. You want to allow him to cut it down the middle.
I'm not sure that your drafting persons in the Library of Parliament have done this correctly, and I want to ask the technical experts from Justice. When I read all the way to the bottom of what is now a very long proposed section 745.51, the last sentence is “as long as (i) in the case of a first degree murder conviction, the period does not exceed twenty-five years”.
Is Mr. Murphy correct that he is talking about the second murder conviction, or is that a totality sentence of parole ineligibility? Or, as a third option, is there some confusion that a court might interpret it the way I seem to be?