Indeed, it can be argued that at least one senator, who was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee — the committee that tabled the report — had serious disagreement with the report, which was the reason he took the adjournment and had not yet spoken, and the prorogation intervened.
En fait, au moins un sénateur siégeant au Comité des affaires étrangères — le comité ayant déposé le rapport — s'opposait fermement à ce dernier, raison pour laquelle il avait demandé l'ajournement du débat sur le rapport.
