I suppose I said something similar to what the first and third witnesses said, talking about how, at the best point, peer review depends on a wide range of experts assessing the material for what it is. If you don't have a diverse viewpoint, then it's a significant problem. You're not getting an actual, complete analysis of the material.
In reality right now, that's not happening in the university sector. The Canada research chairs program and the federal funding agencies are essentially ignoring the reality that there's an incredible skew in who makes up the population of peer reviewers and university researchers. It's not even, as far as I can tell, on the radar.
Secondly, as I was saying in the second half of my comments, the current practices of EDI funding under programs are actually making the political skew much worse.