Yes, I think not only is it overbroad, but it's problematic in that you guys and your colleagues in the House aren't psychic. It's impossible to know before a charge is laid or even a crime has been committed what's going to be important to cross-examine at a trial. I routinely as defence counsel build the defence by cross-examining different police officers and figuring out what exactly it is that is important. I figure it out in advance, but it's helping the judge or jury figure out exactly what is important.
We as counsel, and I'm talking about Crowns and defence counsel, routinely put together agreed statements of fact—which I know you guys have already heard about—because sometimes issues aren't in dispute, and that tightens things up and we all see that. Like I say, we're not complacent about delay. We want to see things move expeditiously as well, but to say in advance that any category of evidence is going to get a free pass from cross-examination or that we have to apply to cross-examine a particular witness, makes no sense. It is unprecedented really in common law jurisdictions around the world that you would have to apply for the basic right to cross-examine, which is protected under the ICCPR, as I mentioned in my brief. Should there be something that's truly trivial, it can go in an agreed statement, but you can't know here and now—with the greatest respect because you guys are all clearly very smart and take this very seriously—in advance what is and is not going to be contentious or significant.
An officer contradicting another officer can be the beginning of a thread that unspools the entire prosecution. It changes the perspective of the court. It can lead to an acquittal or, frankly, can justify a conviction. You can't know that until you're in possession of all the facts.
That's my answer to your question.