Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I'm just talking out the reasons for the necessity for the review, which are many, as I'm determining more and more.
This $595 million is very concerning in terms of the independent media. I struggle to think, and I don't understand yet.... Maybe it wasn't clear in the fall economic statement and I'll have to follow up further in terms of the actual distribution and the funding tied to that. Certainly this must relate back to the debates commissioner in some way or in some capacity. I would imagine that some of the $595 million goes to members of the advisory commission who would be on this debates commission, and thus, would they be compromised? That's a really fair question as we consider this $595 million that was announced yesterday for media.
It's the same: independent commission, independent media. You know what? I don't know what they're saying, but I'd be curious to hear the comments of the journalists in response to this. Actually, they must be quite torn in terms of having a sense of capital, but then also with the strings that are attached. There are always strings attached, it would seem.
I would look to these individuals who commented on the debates commission—Marie Vastel, Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne, Chris Selley and Colby Cosh—to see if they will have articles on this media funding as well. Then again, they might stay silent. This is a conflict that occurs when you are given money. It's hard to speak poorly of someone who is giving you something. They must, in fact, feel very conflicted. As I said, it does affect the debates commission, because potentially they could serve as members of this advisory group.
Again, could they be compromised? If we knew, for example, if one of their members' salary was directly paid by this $595 million from the federal government, could we say that they are truly independent in terms of advising on the rules? Probably not.
I guess it also brings a question in regard to the debates commission. We talk about how they will be free. We might argue we just paid $595 million for these debates, so maybe they aren't free. I've been pretty good at math, historically. That's close to $300 million a debate. That's not a cheap debate. That's definitely a lot of money for a debate, if we're to think of it in those terms. Certainly there are reasons that we need to review this announcement—for all of these reasons that I have indicated.
I was thinking earlier about the mandate of the people. The minister did speak quite extensively in regard to the research that was done. She talked about online and she talked about cross-country consultations. I guess that is comforting.
I've never actually read the summary of the consultations. I'm wondering if it was as well received and integrated as was our—