Thanks for the question.
First of all, the resolution health support program does not have the mandate to replace the Aboriginal Healing Foundation projects. That's clear. However, we have a mandate to serve former students and their family members as they are going through the settlement agreement processes and provide mental health and emotional support services. If you look at some of the AHF projects, you'll see they're providing things that are outside the boundary of our program--for example, on the land kinds of programming, community-wide programming. Our programming is for former students and their family members. I think that answers the difference between the two programs.
In terms of our outreach, our regional director sent letters to every one of the former AHF projects, and we did an analysis that said 300 former students are in that AHF project catchment area; those are numbers we're able to get from INAC. We're saying that's a catchment area where we should be providing services. And if we weren't—and we would know where our people are coming from—then we would do more intense activity to find out, and contact the foundation projects to tell them about the services we have to offer to make sure there's no interruption in the types of mental health counselling people are receiving, and that people should be referred to our program.
In some cases, as I mentioned in my remarks, we met with some of the Healing Foundation project contribution agreement holders and then entered into our own contribution agreements with them. In 55 cases we either entered into new agreements or amended existing agreements upwards to serve those Healing Foundation clients who were previously served by Healing Foundation projects. That's all outside of whether we did brochures or not.
We had a fairly robust process to ensure that people were aware of our program. In cases where significant numbers of former students were being served by an AHF project, we took action to enter into contribution agreements.