Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 23 - Evidence - May 31, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 31, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-277, to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child), met this day at 10:50 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Wilbert J. Keon (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, we have quorum so we can proceed with our hearing on Bill C-277, to amend the Criminal Code, which deals with the luring of children. We are honoured this morning to have with us Ed Fast, M.P., sponsor of the bill, from the House of Commons, and from the Department of Justice Canada, Normand Wong, Counsel, Criminal Law and Policy Section.
Mr. Fast, if you would care to lead off we would be pleased to hear you.
Ed Fast, M.P., sponsor of the bill: Thank you for the opportunity to present to your committee on Bill C-277. I especially want to thank Senator Eggleton, Senator Comeau and Senator Oliver, for expediting this bill and bringing it to this committee. That proves that, from time to time, we can work together to serve the national interests, especially when it involves our children. By now, you have had an opportunity to review the bill and the underlying legislation which it amends. I believe this legislation is another significant step forward in protecting children across Canada against sexual predators. As you might have expected, this bill has received widespread support. At second reading, I commended the previous Liberal government for introducing section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. That section addressed the changing technology environment and the enhanced ability of sexual predators to use the Internet to contact our children. This step was a significant one forward in protecting our children. It criminalized attempts to abuse a child sexually without requiring the child to suffer harm or damage first. Actions that demonstrate a clear intent to use the Internet to commit a sexual offence against a child can result in conviction. This provision allows the authorities to intervene before actual harm occurs to a child.
In short, Bill C-277 simply increases the maximum prison sentences for luring children over the Internet for sexual practices. This is not a case for mandatory minimum sentences. It has two charging provisions, the indictable portion which is for more serious offences, and summary conviction, which the Crown deems less serious. For the indictable offence, my bill would increase the maximum sentence to 10 years in prison from the previous maximum of 5 years. A summary conviction maximum sentence would be increased from 6 months to 18 months in prison.
Why increase the maximum sentence for this crime? Like most of you, I have children, four beautiful daughters. They, together with my wife, are my prized possessions. I love them dearly and we have done everything we can to protect them against those who take their innocence and cause them lifelong harm. Thankfully, they are now all moving into adulthood as caring and responsible human beings. There was a time when they were much more vulnerable than they are right now. Our monitoring of their Internet activities made it abundantly clear that they were being exposed to serious risks. I will not go into detail but we were glad we were there.
As technology continues to improve and change, the challenges parents face become more and more daunting. It appears that the Internet is becoming the platform of choice for those who want to abuse our children sexually. Sexual predators no longer need to hide behind bushes in schoolyards to troll for victims. They now do it from the privacy of their homes and hide their identities and ages behind the anonymity of their computers.
Most of you probably know that Canadian children are among the most Internet savvy in the world. That is a good thing. However, in the process, children are also exposed to the seedier side of the Internet. Whether it is inadequate supervision at home or unsupervised use at libraries, schools or wireless sites, the evidence clearly indicates that children are vulnerable.
Our laws have not kept pace with this reality. As I mentioned, the current maximum sentence for Internet luring in Canada is five years in prison. In that respect, our country lags behind others such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the U.S., which have all enacted criminal sanctions against the luring of children. In those jurisdictions the sentences are significantly higher. In the U.K. for example, legislation calls for a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. In Australia, it is 15 years. In the United States, the federal government enacted legislation that calls for a mandatory minimum of five years in prison with a maximum of 30 years. Individual states have also introduced their own laws against Internet luring with maximum sentences commonly in the 10-year range.
Maximum sentences act as public declaration of the value we place on protecting our children. I believe we need to do more. How prevalent is luring over the Internet? Statistics are hard to come by in Canada due to the short period in which the luring law has been in place. It has been there since 2002 so statistics have been difficult to find. We have had 20 convictions but a lot of evidence is available from other jurisdictions.
A November 2000 Ispos-Reid poll indicated that among users aged 12 to 24, 20 per cent said they had met in person people they became acquainted with over the Internet. A Leger poll reports 14 per cent of children admit to chatting with strangers on the Internet. That finding should concern all of us. An American study that same year revealed that 19 per cent of youth were sexually solicited over the Internet both by their peers and perfect strangers. In Canada, we have Cybertip.ca, a Child Find Manitoba program that has now become a national tip line. It investigates incidents of Internet-related sexual offences. In the first two years of operation, it was inundated with over 1,200 reports that came under the category of child sexual exploitation. Ten per cent, 120 cases, involved internet luring. Some of you may have seen the NBC program, To Catch a Predator, which illustrates how significant the problem of luring has become in the U.S. There is nothing to suggest that we would be any different in Canada. The program stages sting operations throughout the U.S. and found no shortage of material to use. I can provide committee members with a website with graphic details and the particulars of over 130 of these cases.
Closer to home, on Vancouver's talk radio recently two talk show hosts played an audio recording of their own sting where they engaged an Internet lurer in a conversation that was intended to lead to the luring of a child from their home. Police are now seeking the alleged offender.
If time permitted, I could regale you with lurid details of the convictions and sentences for Internet luring since section 172.1 of the Criminal Code became law in Canada. However, in the interests of time, I will simply state that sentences in Canada for a first-time offender typically range from six months to two years in prison. Some sentences involve conditional sentences to accommodate sex offender treatment programs.
I will digress for a moment. Recently in British Columbia, there was conviction of a former RCMP officer who had committed the offence of luring a child over the Internet, and the sentence in that case was one day plus three years' probation. There is another case of another RCMP official who was charged last year at about the same time: I am not aware of the disposition of that offence. We have a problem in Canada that we need to address.
It is only a matter of time before the courts will be called upon to sentence repeat offenders under the luring law. What should be of great concern to all of us is the likelihood that the relatively short maximum sentence of five years will handcuff the court's ability to sentence re-offenders.
Let me offer a tragic and current example. The case of Peter Whitmore — although not, in itself, a case of luring — mesmerized the nation for several months last year as police hunted down this sexual predator who had abducted two young boys. Mercifully, Mr. Whitmore was caught, but only after allegedly committing numerous sexual offences against these boys.
More significant is that his history was replete with sexual offences against children. On at least one occasion, he had been sentenced to five years in prison, only to violate his parole twice when found in the company of young children. This individual for whom five years was not a deterrent continues to represent an ongoing threat to Canadian children.
Let us assume Mr. Whitmore is released from prison again. If he resorts to Internet luring to satisfy his urges and is charged under the luring law, the maximum sentence he could receive is the current maximum of five years, a term that previously failed to deter him from molesting children and does not serve to protect our community. That is one example of these cases. I have a whole list of Canadian cases, which I can share with you if time permits.
The issue is not only repeat offences under section 172.1 but the ability to sentence properly the Peter Whitmores of this world, where luring is only a culmination of a long history of serious sexual crimes against children and others. By increasing the maximum sentence to 10 years, we provide the courts with the tools to remove from society for longer periods of time the most serious of habitual sexual offenders: the Peter Whitmores of our country, if you will. Common sense dictates that someone who repeatedly shows a clear intention to commit crimes against our children will not commit those crimes as long as that person is incarcerated.
I suggest that an increased sentence for luring is justified by the unique nature of sexual offences against children. First, many of those who prey on children are habitual offenders and often cannot be treated, or refuse to be treated. Some will remain a risk to their communities for the rest of their lives. A maximum sentence that delivers an enhanced opportunity for the courts to remove these habitual offenders from our communities clearly serves the interests of our children.
Second, children are uniquely vulnerable in that in many cases they have not yet developed the maturity to discern between what is safe and what is not, between what is good and what is harmful. More often than not they are unable to assess risks adequately and protect themselves against such risks, especially where adult supervision is lacking. That is my real concern. We are dealing with the most vulnerable in our society: children who do not have the ability to defend themselves.
Given these circumstances, our children deserve special attention and protection. I also ask honourable senators to consider that increasing the maximum sentence for luring to 10 years more aptly reflects the seriousness of this offence when compared to other arguably lesser offences under the Criminal Code. If we believe that violent offences against vulnerable children warrant strong denunciation, we must reflect that in the sentences we impose.
Shockingly, a comparison of a number of other Criminal Code offences indicates that the current five-year maximum sentence for luring does not represent the degree of denunciation Canadians expect. A quick comparison of offences that carry a maximum sentence of 10 years or more in prison is instructive. For example, interference and touching for sexual purposes, 10 years. Exposing a child to bestiality, incest, sexual assault: naturally, we want tough sentences for those offences.
Then we move to other sentences: for example, sentences for parental abduction. One parent taking a child from the custodial parent without permission is an offence under the Criminal Code. Arguably, in some cases the child may not be hurt physically or mentally by that action, but it is a Criminal Code offence and the maximum sentence is 10 years. The simple distribution of child pornography, which arguably is a non-personal-injury offence, carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Now I will come to the shocking offences: The offence of committing fraud of $5,000 or more carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison; even more shockingly, the offence of stealing cattle carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
Clearly, there is a disjunct in the sentencing provisions in our Criminal Code. That anomaly needs to be addressed.
When viewed in the context of these comparative offences, the luring of our children for sexual purposes cries out for at least similar if not harsher treatment. My heart tells me that the protection of our children is worth much more than the theft of cattle or fraud over $5,000.
Colleagues, my private member's bill does not pretend to be a sweeping reform of the justice system. It simply addresses an apparent anomaly in the sentencing provisions of section 172.1 of the Criminal Code. I fully expect this bill will be a significant and tangible improvement in the sanctions available against those who repeatedly violate or attempt to violate the innocence of our vulnerable children.
Before I close, I note that initially at second reading all parties except the Bloc Québécois supported my bill in principle. When I defended the bill at the House Justice Committee I was grateful that all parties supported the amended bill, including the Bloc. The same held true at third reading in the House where the bill was passed by consent of all parties without requiring a standing vote.
Let me summarize what Bill C-277 achieves. First, it condemns, in the strongest terms, the sexual exploitation of our children. Second, it brings the maximum sentence for luring into line with other sexual offences in the Criminal Code, which commonly provides for maximum sentences of at least 10 years. Third, it elevates the seriousness of the luring offences to the level at least equal to the level that involves no physical harm to children such as fraud over $5,000, theft of cattle and parental abduction. Fourth, it improves the tools judges have available to remove from society habitual offenders that represent an ongoing and sometimes permanent danger to our children.
The bill provides a more flexible tool to sentence offenders for whom luring is a culmination of a long history of sex- related crimes.
The message of Bill C-277 is clear: Children are precious, vulnerable and worthy of the highest protection. We can all agree they deserve nothing less. Thank you, and I am open to questions.
Normand Wong, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I will start off with what I understand is my role here before this honourable committee. As a Department of Justice official, I am here to answer technical questions about the Criminal Code and the private member's bill. As a private member's bill, the department has had no input into the policy that led to this bill's development, nor is it appropriate for me to comment or opine on the policy of this bill.
I will make a short factual statement and then answer any questions within the aforementioned parameters.
[Translation]
The crime of luring children over the Internet, described in section 172.1, came into effect on July 23, 2002, under the terms of former Bill C-15A, and required changes to the Criminal Code to better protect children from sexual exploitation specifically by addressing the way in which the Internet was being used to exploit children.
[English]
The provision specifically prohibits the use of a computer system to communicate with a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of one of the enumerated child sexual exploitation or abduction offences.
[Translation]
Although the act completely prohibited physical contact of a sexual nature as a result of these Internet communications, it was less effective in dealing with actions taken beforehand that facilitate this contact.
[English]
For example, luring a child could have been charged as an "attempt'' to commit a sexual exploitation offence, but as the law on attempts requires that the conduct amount to more than mere preparation, it would often be difficult to characterize the communication as more than mere preparation to commit the actual offence. The purpose of this new offence was to stop the perpetrator before the actual physical contact with a minor could be made.
Today, the Department of Justice, together with our provincial and territorial counterparts, continues to monitor the implementation of section 172.1. Unfortunately, as Mr. Fast has said before, because the offence came into effect only in 2002, there is not much statistical data relating to its use. However, the cases that we have seen confirm that section 172.1 is being used successfully to address Internet luring of children: Charges are being laid and convictions secured, including as a result of guilty pleas and with sentences of imprisonment.
Keeping in mind that Canada remains one of the world's most plugged-in countries, we know that the importance of section 172.1 will not diminish. Bill C-277, as amended by the House of Commons, proposes to increase the maximum penalties on indictment and for summary convictions of the luring offences. These changes bring the penalties of the luring offence in line with the majority of the other child sexual exploitation offences.
Also, as a complement to these proposed amendments, Bill C-22, which is now before the Senate as well, and which proposes to increase the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years, will also better protect youth, especially 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds, against Internet luring. Statistics have shown that this group is most at risk.
I would be happy to answer questions now.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, Mr. Fast, for bringing this extremely important issue to the attention of Canadians and to Parliament. I have no problem with the bill increasing the number of years to 10 years. Anything that acts as a deterrent for what is a despicable, horrendous crime is to be commended.
I have a couple of questions quasi-related to the bill, if you do not mind me asking them. I have had the opportunity to speak with members who were operating Cybertip in Manitoba, and, like you, they gave us statistics that are shocking. My guess is that the statistics about the number of attempts at luring children is only the tip of the iceberg, and that a great many children do not even realize that the luring process is in place because, as you say, many of them are at the age where they do not understand what is safety, what is friendship and what is luring.
At this time, if someone is in jail for the crime of luring a young person, do they have access to the Internet while they are in prison?
I have seen a number of advertisements dealing with children and warning children about the potential of being lured on the Internet. I was an elementary school teacher and I know that even teaching young children, seven-year- olds and eight-year-olds were far more advanced in computer skills than I was. I am not sure that parents realize how Internet savvy their children are and I am not certain the parents realize the dangers in allowing children free access to the computers. While many commercials and many books tell parents to have their computers in an open space to ensure awareness, many computers are in children's bedrooms where they go in and close the door, and parents have no idea what they are accessing.
Owners of websites and people looking to lure children will put as the name of their website something that a child could type in innocently. Lo and behold, what springs up on the screen is pornographic or something that parents would not want their children viewing.
Should we have a national program for educating parents, as well as children, of the dangers of the Internet? Certainly the Internet is an extremely positive thing and we cannot go backwards, but I am not sure that those of us who are not as Internet savvy as our children understand the dangers.
Mr. Fast: Regarding prisoners having access to the Internet, I can speak only from my experience in Abbotsford, British Columbia, which is my home. A significant correctional facility is located there. I visited that facility and I specifically asked that question. They have a facility there for those who need special treatment. I asked whether the inmates have access to computers in their cells and I was told that there is one computer available and it is tightly controlled by the administration in the facility. They do not have unsupervised access to the Internet.
I do not know if that is the case across Canada, but certainly in our facility in Abbotsford it is.
Senator Cordy: That is good news.
Mr. Fast: The second question, the whole issue of educating parents, in my submission to the House of Commons Justice Committee, I went further to talk about parents. Ultimately, the most effective way of addressing this issue is for parents to take the lead. It is not only a matter of placing computers in accessible spaces where a mom and dad walk by on a regular basis. We did that. It was in a den, which was open. We went to the den every 10 or 15 minutes so we knew what our children were doing. Thank goodness we did. We have a great relationship with our four daughters and, on one occasion specifically, our daughter allowed us to see what she was doing there. We realized the conversation that was taking place was not healthy and we immediately we put a stop to it. On a number of other occasions, we were able to intervene as well.
Educating parents is the most critical aspect of this problem. The law can only go so far. The challenge is for parents to have that close, special relationship with their children. Many parents do not and that is unfortunate.
Senator Cordy: We cannot legislate that either.
Mr. Fast: We cannot legislate that. The children must trust you to confide in you with things they may view on the Internet. I am not sure that is always the case, but I believe there is merit in looking at a national program because directing it at the kids will not be that effective. If it comes through the parents, and there is a trusting relationship there, it probably will be more effective.
Mr. Wong: I would like to add to what Mr. Fast has said because of the first question regarding access to the Internet. Criminal Code provisions are already in place under section 161. It is an order of prohibition. If the accused or the convicted person is on parole or has a conditional sentence, the judge can make one of the conditions that they not use a computer. Also under section 164.1 is the forfeiture provisions in terms of the tools used in an offence. In Bill C-23 that is currently before the House, an amendment is being made to section 172.1. If a perpetrator commits a luring offence, they could have their computer equipment forfeited.
Regarding a national program, I know there is a need for further education. Programs are already in place, so if people are aware of them, they can access them. Cybertip.ca also has a large education component as part of their mandate and is funded partially by the federal government.
Mr. Fast: I have a chance to go to schools on a regular basis in my role as a member of Parliament. I try to stay as non-partisan as I can because it is mostly educational. One thing I raise is this issue of luring, because it is certainly of interest to my community. I go out of my way to tell the kids about the bad people out there who want to use something that is good, the Internet, for their own purposes. I try to do my part.
Senator Cochrane: My sentiments are the same as my colleague, Senator Cordy. Regarding relationships with parents and children, 14 years and 16 years is the age group we should be more cautious about because these children are probably the ones that do not communicate well with parents. That focus is a major one. I do not know the age of your children. I know little ones are there as well, because they are more vulnerable. Sometimes the 14- or 16-year-olds want to experiment or whatever, and they hide their feelings from their parents.
Let me ask a few things. Have you consulted with the Province of British Columbia and what they think of this bill? Does it go far enough? What are their views?
Mr. Fast: I have not consulted with the province because this offence is not new. It is simply an increase in the penalties. I suspect few Canadians would disagree with this bill. That is why at the House committee we realized we would have unanimous support, even from the Bloc Québécois. From time to time, the Bloc takes a position counter to initiatives that our government and previous governments have taken on getting tough on sentencing. In this case, they clearly saw the merits because this group is especially vulnerable. It is almost defenceless. We have already raised the issue of children who do not have significant supervision at home, or may not have a close relationship with their parents. They are incredibly vulnerable. I cannot tell you that the province has officially endorsed this bill, but I have received overwhelming support.
Senator Cochrane: It may be a good idea to consult British Columbia. You have mentioned the problem here of when offenders receive sentences of less than two years and the judge has the discretion of imposing a conditional sentence. Are you familiar with that one in British Columbia?
Mr. Fast: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: Can you tell us about it? Has the judge imposed a conditional sentence often?
Mr. Fast: I can tell you the experience across Canada. On a number of occasions, conditional sentences have been imposed. In all or most of those cases — it is not a huge number, I believe perhaps three or four — it is because these offenders are receiving treatment and they may have already received treatment in the community before they were convicted. They want to maintain the continuum of treatment and so they are sentenced to a term that is a house arrest.
Most penalties are for jail terms. In the case of the recent one I raised with the RCMP officer, I do not know the circumstances of why he was sentenced to only one day in prison with three years probation. On its face it concerns me, but I am not sure I want to go beyond that.
Senator Cochrane: Was he not a judge as well before?
Mr. Fast: He would have been, absolutely. My understanding is that he pleaded guilty before the trial date. The trial date was in June of this year, and he pleaded guilty before that.
Senator Cochrane: What is the minimum for animal theft? You say 10 years is the maximum. What is the minimum?
Mr. Fast: I do not know that there is a minimum sentence for animal theft. There is only a maximum.
Senator Cochrane: Have you known of animal theft? Have you known of any cases where a penalty was invoked? You do not know that either?
Mr. Fast: No.
Senator Callbeck: I agree with what the other senators have said. I too have no problem with increasing the penalties for luring children. I wanted to ask Mr. Wong about section 172. That section has only been in effect since 2002, so, granted, we do not have much statistical data. The cases since that time have confirmed that section 172 is being successfully used to address the Internet luring of children. Do you have any figures that you can give us? How many have been charged?
Mr. Wong: The figures that we have are primarily environmental scans. They are not from Statistics Canada because of the lag in reporting the statistics. It usually takes four years to collect statistics. We might have one or two partial years reported. Our research and statistics division has completed an environmental scan. Approximately 80 to 90 charges have been laid across Canada with the majority of those charged receiving convictions. Only two cases have actually dealt with the substantive aspects of the provision itself. As Mr. Fast said, in the vast majority of cases, sentences are custodial sentences, not conditional sentences. I am aware of only two or three that have been conditional sentences.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Mr. Wong, Carole Morency from your department quoted from an American study. Last summer in August 2006, the United States National Center for Missing and Exploited Children released a report in the 2005 Youth Internet Safety Survey. It found that of the youth who were targeted for sexual solicitations and approaches on the Internet, 70 per cent were girls and 30 per cent boys, and 81 per cent of those targeted were 14 years or older.
My question around Internet luring is, as with some other serious crimes, this crime is arguably a gendered crime. On the whole, we are talking about girls, and perpetrators that are usually men. Are other mechanisms in the justice system in place to deter other gendered crimes?
Mr. Wong: Thank you for that question.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You may not know the answer. I do not know the answer either. It is a serious one because this gender neutral stuff is rubbish. We are talking about little girls and guys in this instance, as we often are in cases of rape.
Mr. Wong: In terms of the age most at risk, it is primarily because they are the most computer savvy group. When a teenager starts high school, using the Internet is one way to communicate with peers. They are probably online more than the rest of us. I spend little time online, but the children of my friends are constantly on line, or they have their mobile phones and are always text messaging their friends.
The crime seems to be a gender biased one. I do not know, in terms of sexual exploitation, the reason why luring tends to be more gendered than the other child sexual exploitation offences. In many cases there, the luring is done by their peers. You would expect parents to be more sensitive to an 18- or 19-year-old boy hitting on their 14- or 15-year- old daughter as opposed to a 14-year-old boy getting hit on by a 16- or 17-year-old girl. The reported cases in that age group have more to do with how teenagers use the communication tool and the concerns of parents who monitor their activity.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Can you see any way in the justice system that there could or should be more mechanisms to deter these kind of gender-specific crimes? What kind of mechanisms are there?
Mr. Wong: We do not work that way at the Department of Justice, first of all. We work hard at trying to make the language, technology and gender neutral in the code. It does not have to change, depending on the criminal phenomenon that might come up. I have not given any thought to that issue because we work at the other end where we try to use completely neutral language to make sure we capture the criminal activity regardless of what gender perpetrates it.
Senator Fairbairn: In the work that you have done, what formed the base of all these horrendous things? Do you have a rundown of the basis of activity in the provinces, or is this piece of legislation specifically federal? Do the provinces have any particular role to play or does it come down from the federal government?
Mr. Fast: I will defer to Mr. Wong. I will simply say, this legislation is clearly federal. Criminal law is clearly federal. Enforcement tends to be a provincial issue. In terms of sentencing, these cases are significant because any sentence under two years historically would have meant incarceration in a provincial institution, and over two years a federal institution. Now, I understand the federal government is taking over the administration of some provincial institutions as well. Is that correct?
Mr. Wong: I cannot answer that.
Senator Cochrane: When did this change come into effect?
Mr. Fast: I am trying to recall from memory exactly what changes are taking place. Significant changes are taking place in the correctional services where the federal government is taking over some provincial roles. I can get back to you on that.
Senator Fairbairn: It occurred to me that I remembered something had happened and it would be helpful if we knew that.
Mr. Fast: I will get back to you on that.
The Deputy Chairman: I believe that completes our questioning. If you are in agreement, honourable senators we will move to clause-by-clause consideration.
Thank you very much, Mr. Fast and Mr. Wong.
Is it agreed honourable senators that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-277, to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that this bill be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that I report this bill at the next sitting of the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. That completes this portion of our meeting. We will now go in camera to complete the draft report of the committee on literacy.
The committee continued in camera.