Martha works fine, thank you. Mrs. does not.
It is on exactly the point about the order of the witnesses. I think my colleague has said we want to hear as much as we can.
To Ms. Gallant's comment about the interest of time, for something of this size and this import I don't think time should be the critical thing. I think this committee should actually devote as much time as is necessary to this given the size and import of the task.
I do actually have some concern given that we know we're going to have witnesses who have very different opinions. In a legal environment, when you have a witness and then you have another witness--one for the defence and one for the prosecution--there is always a chance to come back, specifically because the order actually does matter. So I would actually want to make sure there was the opportunity either for these witnesses, who we know are going to have different opinions, to be here at the same time...and not to allow one to then come after the other. I don't care which one. In either case, if you have two witnesses who are going to have very different opinions, having one person go second without an opportunity for the first one to come back afterwards is giving a significant advantage to the testimony of the second person.
So I would recommend that since the order is important, we should accommodate that. So it may actually make sense to have them come at the same time.