No, there isn't.
To talk about knowledge, you have to begin by establishing that's what it really is. For example, one hears the expression "traditional knowledge". It's important to clearly understand, epistemologically speaking, that just because something is traditional does not mean it's necessarily true. I'll give a straightforward example: For over 1,500 years in Europe, traditional medicine practised bloodletting. All doctors considered bloodletting to be a panacea. At that time, it was traditional knowledge. When doctors began to wonder whether it really worked, they found that it did not, except in very specific cases of hematology. Doctors therefore stopped practising bloodletting, because knowledge had evolved over time. Calling it traditional knowledge doesn't cut it.
Scientific testing of homeopathy proved that it didn't work. Taking homeopathic medicine may do some good, but it's not science. All that we can really say is that science is evolving. We are no longer in the 17th century, but rather the 21st. Everything around us, like television, is the outcome of new scientific knowledge that enables us to understand the world. Science looks forward, not back.
The previous discussion mentioned education, but that's not the same thing as training researchers. There are many ways to learn mathematics, but if Canada wants to send an astronaut to the moon, it's going to be with differential and integral calculus. It can't be done with traditional knowledge.
The word "traditional" is in vogue, but if the intent is to find ways of including traditional knowledge, I would humbly say that if you go in that direction, you'll get nowhere. People need to be consulted about their environment, and what they say needs to be verified. If what they say is true, then it becomes knowledge.
There is always talk about tradition. I don't have anything against traditions, but the entire history of science shows that traditions evolve. Einstein discovered the theory of relativity. Does that make it Jewish science? No, it doesn't. Einstein was Jewish, but there is no such thing as Jewish science. The Nazis wanted Jewish science and the communists wanted proletarian science, but they don't exist. There is universal science, whether by Russians, Germans, Chinese or Israelis. That mustn't be forgotten, because if it is, we'll be heading in a dangerous direction, as history has shown. Individuals ought not to be affiliated with a community by referring to things like Quebec science. There is no Quebec science. There is no Canadian science, but there are Canadians who are practising science.
It's not just playing with words. If you believe that there is such a thing as Canadian science, you might as well be saying that there is Jewish science and Russian science. It's not true. But there are Russian scientists and there are Quebec scientists and there are Chinese scientists.
If you want to meet your objective, then it's essential to incorporate knowledge. The knowledge that you need to build into scientific policies is not traditional knowledge, but rather knowledge "simplicity", as philosophers put it. It means knowledge that has been validated. How can it be tested? By using known methods. It requires corroboration and calculations. Computers can be used. Methods have been available to do this since Galileo's time, and they are used around the world.