Thank you.
The issue that had been raised, and I think we were all very partial towards moving in that direction when we were hearing the testimony, was that the high cost of insurance is now really affecting many museums, and small museums are finding it very difficult to get insurance now. So they were looking at this program as a possible means of alleviating that.
The problem when the testimony came through was that in order to be able to have a special indemnification fund for travelling exhibits worth up to $1.5 billion, you would have to have a very special set of criteria in order to meet that. Either we become, as Mr. Abbott said, general insurance brokers offering various sliding scales of indemnification for a very small museum wanting to move something down the road to another exhibit at $50,000, or we're moving a Picasso from New York City to an exhibit in Montreal. The program isn't set up to do both.
So $500,000 as the low end of the scale still allows the certain category of art and historical artifacts to move, but it becomes very difficult to expect any small museum to meet—because they have to have extremely stringent requirements. So far, if I recall correctly, there hasn't been a single payout. You have to really meet the criteria before you can even be eligible.
Whether or not a small museum, even if we offered it to them, would ever access it is very unlikely. So the status quo at this point seems to be the realistic option.