Derek Vincent LEE

LEE, Derek Vincent, B.A., LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Scarborough--Rouge River (Ontario)
Birth Date
October 2, 1948
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Lee_(politician)
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=343f8a28-17d8-4230-9774-2805e41a7395&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

November 21, 1988 - September 8, 1993
LIB
  Scarborough--Rouge River (Ontario)
October 25, 1993 - April 27, 1997
LIB
  Scarborough--Rouge River (Ontario)
June 2, 1997 - October 22, 2000
LIB
  Scarborough--Rouge River (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (September 1, 1999 - September 12, 2001)
November 27, 2000 - May 23, 2004
LIB
  Scarborough--Rouge River (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (September 1, 1999 - September 12, 2001)
June 28, 2004 - November 29, 2005
LIB
  Scarborough--Rouge River (Ontario)
January 23, 2006 - September 7, 2008
LIB
  Scarborough--Rouge River (Ontario)
October 14, 2008 - March 26, 2011
LIB
  Scarborough--Rouge River (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 384)


March 21, 2011

Mr. Derek Lee

With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in the Yukon: (a) what is the description of each project; (b) what is the expected cost of each project; and (c) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Topic:   Routine Proceedings
Subtopic:   Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Full View Permalink

March 21, 2011

Mr. Derek Lee

With regard to ecoENERGY Fund projects in the Yukon: (a) what is the description of each project; (b) what is the expected cost of each project; and (c) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Topic:   Routine Proceedings
Subtopic:   Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Full View Permalink

March 21, 2011

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering what the hon. member would think about the following perspective, that lying behind this particular set of facts that gave rise to this amending legislation was a situation that involved common law defences and the statutorily written defences in the Criminal Code.

I always thought that the combination of the two was sufficient to deal with the actual case at hand. As it turned out, they were sufficient to deal with the case at hand because the charges against the individual involved were dropped or dismissed. In fact, they were not dropped but were proceeded with, which was the big problem, as they occasioned costs and all kinds of potential embarrassment to this citizen, this businessman.

However, I am just wondering if the hon. member would agree that the government is now going back and tinkering with the common law defences, because over half of this bill deals with the common law self-defence provisions. Will the tinkering not hurt the purpose of the bill, which was just to fix the one problem identified in the fact situation?

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act
Full View Permalink

March 21, 2011

Mr. Derek Lee

With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in Prince Edward Island: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

Topic:   Routine Proceedings
Subtopic:   Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Full View Permalink

March 7, 2011

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Speaker, I can agree with him that it might be a good approach. I cannot bind my colleagues in the House or at committee, but it is one approach to getting rid of the whole truckload of potential issues involved in codifying the self-defence provisions of the Criminal Code.

My friend mentioned small business owners. There are thousands of them across the country, all of whom deserve the respect of police and Canadians in their communities. I am also thinking of other scenarios where there are big companies, firms and corporations and security guards, some of whom are armed. There are implications for those scenarios and personal property scenarios that we will have to think about now.

The average citizen is probably quite happy thinking that he or she is okay with his or her rights of self-defence. However, now the government must codify and change it. Therefore, we must think it through to ensure that we get it right for the ordinary citizen, whether he or she is dealing with a small shopping store, a big shopping mall, the big corporate-owned plot of land or the big corporate-owned ranch scenario, when it comes to trespassing and defence of property. I am suspicious that all of this is unnecessary.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act
Full View Permalink