I think we need a concrete mechanism, not vague metaphors about collaborating. I'll give you a very simple example.
Peer review is done in science double-blind. Why is it double-blind? When you send in a paper, you want it to be evaluated as if it's good, and you don't want cognitive bias to move it in a bad direction. When you send in a paper, you don't have the name of the individual and you don't have the name of the institution, because if it's written at Harvard University, you may think it's a good paper, so double-blind works. It means that when you are consulting on a policy, you are consulting everyone who has an expertise, and then you make a decision in the end. There are no two ways or no five ways.
Since the 17th century, the Chinese don't say yin and yang to go on the moon. They say that they learned from Newton, learned from Einstein, learned from everyone. I don't want to know the colour of your skin. I don't want to know your community. Do I speak for the Quebeckers? That does not exist. I am a Quebecker, and I make my decision.
For your committee to integrate, I'm sorry, but I think it's simpler than we think. If you are addressing an environment policy in a given place, you have a committee talking to everyone who wants to talk. We already do that in environmental studies. Some people come and say they don't think you should do that for this or that reason, but that reason must be consensual. That's what the Supreme Court decided also. Judge Binnie said that if you want expertise at the Supreme Court, this expertise must be subjected to the usual methods of the scientific community. Why? That's the only way to be sure it's true and can be verified.