Jocelyn can probably follow up more specifically with examples from the specific centres, but I think it's about understanding the isolation that already exists in urban spaces. As Jocelyn said, there's this idea that if you live in a city, it must be better because you have access to counsellors or services or programs, but in reality it is sometimes even more isolating, because you don't always have the same kinship bonds you would have in your own territory.
People are more than just a clinical response. They require an emotional response, a clinical response and sometimes just a social response or opportunity. If it's an urban person who may not have a phone, who may not have the Internet at home, who may live in a boarding house, for example, all those factors contribute to someone's isolation and the buildup of some of these other social issues, because there really isn't a strategy for dealing with some of these interpersonal stressors and if you don't have a virtual way to meet with a counsellor, you're alone. For a lot of these issues, that isolation makes it even worse.
Connections and connectivity need to exist in communities to make sure people are wrapped right into the services they need. In terms of eligibility for programs, there are federal programs in which technology is not an eligible expense. You have to start looking at how you support the most vulnerable, and it's the flexibility to get the tools people need to be as connected and supported as possible.
I'll go to Jocelyn because I know she has specific data about what we've seen since the start.