Part of the value of having a National Research Council, an instrument of government that is based in science, is that while we undertake strategic prioritization and day-to-day research that is responsive to the broad needs of Canada, part of the value of maintaining that base of expertise and a base of foundational scientific capability is that you can have it pivot in an instant to be responsive to emerging crises like pandemics, but not exclusively pandemics. The next emerging crisis may or may not be a pandemic, but I can tell you that the NRC, like it did with the current pandemic, will take its foundational scientific capabilities—both expertise and facilities—and bring them to bear.
In answer to your question, there is no doubt that some of the priorities of the NRC shifted. The activities shifted. As a concrete example, in our metrology labs, we used the capabilities that we have there for a totally different purpose during the pandemic. We produced reagents that were needed in order to undertake the scale of PCR testing that was needed in this country when the supply chains were not able to deliver that reagent.
That is exactly part of the value of maintaining this kind of scientific capability, because, at its core, science is science, so where you have that expertise that one day may be looking at maintaining our base of metrology for the nation, the next day you can use it to produce reagents.
I would say that some of the day-to-day activities shifted, but our raison d'être actually came to the fore. It did not change, I don't think, where we're going in the long term, which is to equally continue our focus on some of the broad existential questions of our day—climate change and the long-term health of Canadians—while still trying to maintain what has always been a core of foundational expertise and facilities that can be brought to bear, whatever the government's need of the day might be.