4. 对于这两种办法，有人支持，也有人反对。加拿大表示支持制定一项港到港文书，这并不是因为我们不承认门到门运输已成为普遍做法这一现实，而是因为我们坚信：a) 海事委员会的最初目标是首先着重于恢复海运方式国际法的统一，这一目标是正确的，对尚未制订国际管理规则的领域（例如电子单据）采用统一的规则是非常重要的；b) 这一目标不应因工作组的工作范围延伸至其他运输方式而被延误或损害；c) 制定一项严格限于海运方式的新文书，会比一项还旨在管理其他运输方式的文书更有望被广泛采用，因为其他运输方式迄今在大多数国家仍由本国法律管辖，只有那些目前已适用其他运输方式的国际公约的国家除外，其中主要是欧洲国家。
4. Both approaches received support as well as objections. Canada indicated its support for the development of a port-to-port instrument not because we do not recognize the reality of the widespread practice of door-to-door transport, but because we strongly believe that: a) the initial objective of CMI to focus first on restoring uniformity of international law in the marine mode was the right one, and that the introduction of harmonized rules in areas which have not yet been regulated internationally (e.g. electronic documents) was of great importance; b) that this objective should not be delayed or jeopardized by extending the scope of the work of the Working Group to other modes of transport; and c) that a new instrument developed strictly for the marine mode would have better prospects of being widely adopted, than if it was an instrument designed to regulate also other modes, hitherto subject to national law in most countries, save for those mainly European countries where international conventions for other modes are currently in effect.