In my opinion, there are some similarities, but there are also some differences.
I think there would probably be a fairly strong reaction, because Canada clearly sees itself as being in a sovereign position. I would expect you'd see very strong negative positions and opposition from the Government of the United States, which is very concerned about passage through international waters. I think there are fairly major differences in the sense that one of the things one has to consider is that this passage opens up a new gateway. You're not dealing with historical rights, as you are with NAFO.
In the case of NAFO, there are historical fishing opportunities. That's something we have to somehow deal with. In the concept of custodial management, we respect the historical shares and historical access that countries have had in fishing historically and traditionally on the Grand Banks. There are questions with that, questions with regard to how far back you go. Are we talking about going back 200 years, or are we talking about historical rights that were accrued over the last 30 to 40 years? These are very big questions, but I think that would be one of the differences in terms of looking at the Northwest Passage versus a NAFO convention.
In terms of an international authority to manage the Northwest Passage, I think such an authority would probably be seen as problematic by many people. I think there are differences, and I would hesitate to offer advice on the Northwest Passage, quite frankly.