That's another reason why I try to speak slowly. It helps.
A burden of proof comes into play.
When a former employee wants to use the extra time provided by the regulations to exceed the three‑month limit, it means that they were unable to meet this deadline. Mrs. Falk, it's an uphill battle.
You must first prove that you experienced trauma or had a certain health issue that prevented you from filing a notice of occurrence or complaint.
It doesn't stop there. You must provide documents and perhaps even visit a notary and make a sworn statement. You must provide medical documents. There are all sorts of requests, documents and sworn statements. It's in front of me. Two full pages of requests are made to the former employee. This may be enough to discourage them from filing a complaint.
When you have post‑traumatic stress disorder or are facing difficulties, you end up with depression or anxiety that you didn't have before. It's also complicated when you need to take all these steps. The burden of proof is currently placed on the shoulders of this person. I'm sure that not a single parliamentarian here wants that. However, I think that this is where things stand today.
If we could extend this deadline and remove this burden of proof and these additional hurdles, it would obviously make the procedure and the process easier for these former employees.
I don't know whether I fully answered your question.