I would be happy to do that, sir.
I think I'll move fairly quickly. I'll draw your attention on the next page to some of the results concerning the numbers of visitors and to some of the other benefits to institutions in terms of increased revenues, membership, and increased gifts.
What I'd like to spend the next couple of minutes on is the program evaluation recommendations. While there are good things, there are always things that could be better. We have enhanced our program measurement strategies. We're collecting better data as we go along. What the evaluation called for most particularly, which is of greatest interest to this particular committee, is the requirement to make sure that some of the design parameters continue to be effective in current market conditions. That is the rest of the presentation.
As we go through this, we need to balance the flexibility that clients want with the management of risk to the Crown. That is the fundamental element of analysis.
If I go to page 14, there certainly has been pressure on us to lighten up on the exclusions. We have varied the exclusions for certain exhibits, because of insistence on the part of foreign lenders particularly to do that. Also, in certain cases we have added to our standard exclusions in order to be able to manage risks associated with a particular set of exhibits. So we have a lot of pressure to change that list.
The exclusions fall into three categories. First, there may be certain ones that would be considered the responsibility of owners, or inherent in the composition or condition of objects, and those of normal wear and tear, inherent vice, or ownership claims.
The second group can be assessed, and we can take measures to mitigate the risk to the Crown. That includes issues such as vermin, radioactive contamination, and the various forms of disturbance, war and strikes, etc. We would note that a number of the international indemnification schemes don't exclude those perils. Britain actually deals with acts of war through a separate mechanism. They haven't experienced claims as a result of an approach that doesn't bar coverage of those.
Then there's a third category that we really can't anticipate, so it's hard to assess or mitigate the risk, whether it's unauthorized repair or wilful misconduct. So as we move forward in acting on the recommendations of the evaluation, and as part of your review, one of the issues is whether we should stick with our standard list or open up a little.
The second key issue was the annual ceiling for liability. This was actually forecast at the time the bill was passed as something that might need to be reviewed over time. We have crowded the limit. In fact, as a result of error, there was a time when were over the limit. In another circumstance, the National Gallery withdrew an application in order to leave room for a smaller institution to benefit.
We're also seeing a trend line in terms of the average value of exhibitions, and that's starting to put pressure on the number of exhibitions we would be able to indemnify in any given year. Again internationally, Canada is not alone here; other countries have adjusted their ceilings.
As we mentioned earlier, this particular provision is set out in the legislation. But the legislation also provides that it can be changed either through an amendment to the act, or through an appropriations act. We need to look at the risk elements.
On page 18, the exhibit cap of $450 million is another area that was flagged earlier. In the first five years of the program, six of the exhibitions we indemnified had values exceeding $450 million. The institutions had to purchase additional insurance. That was another direct cost to them of $8.5 million.
Other countries have either no specified cap, or a higher cap than we do. Similarly, either an amendment to the indemnification act or an appropriation act could change that cap. If it were changed, we would look at risks.
On the limit of $100 million per conveyance, I would observe that relatively few objects actually exceed that amount. You saw in the papers a few weeks ago the Picasso painting that sold for $95 million, the highest valued painting ever sold. This is one of the pivotal points for risk management: risk is greatest during transit.
The minimum threshold is $500,000. In the evaluation, we did hear from people who said it would be so much easier to have a grants program than to have to go through all the nuisance of the review for indemnification. We do note that the Canadian Museums Association has a group insurance program targeted to smaller exhibitions and institutions that don't meet the facilities requirement. We do provide financial support through the museums assistance program for travelling exhibitions, and insurance is an eligible expense. And even if we cleared out all the ones, say, under $3 million, we'd not actually be creating much room at the top end for some of the larger ones. It's fair to note that the purpose of the indemnification program in the first place was targeted at the larger exhibitions.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, if I went a little longer than you would like, but there are a lot of pieces to deal with after five years.