Thank you so much, gentlemen. I'm very pleased to hear you talk about how one of these horrific child abuse videos is too many and how you share our concern, but in October 2020, Pornhub was asked by a respected Canadian journalist about the allegations of child pornography on your site, and Pornhub's position was that they were “conspiracy theories”. That was repeated again, I believe, in December.
It was when MasterCard and Visa threatened to pull out their support and you had to flush 80% of your content that we started to see these changes.
To say that this was conspiracy theory, I think, is a real disrespect for the families who have gone through this, because your link searches before the changes included “13-year-old”; “12-year-old”; multiple variations of “middle school”—and in Canada, middle school is grades 7 to 9—“assault”; “drugs”; “exploited black teen”; “drugged teen”; “runaway teen”; “homeless teen”; “abused teen”; “teen destroyed”; “teen manipulated”; “stolen teen sex tape”; and “crying teen”. Each of these videos would have been viewed by your team of experts and given the flag to go ahead.
I want to go back to the question I asked earlier on subsection 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code, which says that it is an offence to transmit, make available, distribute, advertise or sell child pornography in any of these forms, and it is a 14-year sentence. At any point when you were promoting these links of 12-year-olds and runaway teens, was there a conversation that you were actually breaking Canadian law?