 Good afternoon and welcome to what I would say the most important brief so far on the subject of inclusive growth. My name is Chalot Piotrkonitska and today I'm a moderator, but I'm very, very active working for this issue. I'm so happy to have three very informed people and influential people on the spot here today because we're going to ask you tough questions. We have Rick Sammons from the World Economic Forum and the Management Board. We have two finance ministers. We have Minister Monod from Canada and Minister Gatteta from Rwanda. So once again, very welcome and welcome to our audience online. We will spend 29 minutes from now on this very important topic and may I just say we have been talking about inclusive growth for many years. It's been one of the kind of the buzz headings for a lot of what we want to achieve. But while we have been talking, we have seen that actually the development is going in an opposite direction. We see inequalities increasing. We don't see inclusive growth necessarily increasing. We also see that there are some governments who take this as a priority but very few governments and international bodies and governments who want to really find ways to go from words to what they mean or struggling and where to start and where to entry. We're going to hear a little bit from all of you, but I would like to start to ask you, Rick, World Economic Forum, how do you view this issue of inclusive growth? And if I may be a bit tough on you, I mean, this is where we're going to solve these issues, responsible leadership and all of that. It's all about this, I would have thought. So do you feel kind of sense of urgency in contributing to this? I agree with the premise of your question, Charlotte, that this is one of the most central issues implicated by the theme that you just referred to, responsive and responsible leadership. This is certainly one of the largest issues hanging over the international community right now and indeed this meeting here in Davos this week. I think it's fair to say that there's a broad even worldwide consensus on the direction of inclusive growth. People recognize that we need to find a way both to have growth because unless the pie expands, it's very difficult for everybody's piece to expand over time, that we also need a more socially inclusive model generating that. The problem, as you have just pointed out, is that it's more aspiration than action currently. Although we have two governments represented here who, from my perspective, are governments that really think seriously and have a strategic framework for thinking through how to infuse their growth process with social inclusivity, as opposed to try to compensate for the problems after the fact. And it's terrific that they're here to articulate a little bit of how their government's approach to this issue. For our part, we decided about a year or so ago, seeing this distance between aspiration and action, that we just try to think about through historical experience, observation of practice, and scholarship, just what the economics research shows, whether there's some frameworks and some tools that might be useful for governments that do have this ambition. And we released earlier in the week this inclusive growth and development report, and I'll just give you just a skeleton of what is in here. First it articulates a bottom line. And this is, I think, maybe it sounds subtle, but I think it's significant. Growth is absolutely crucial, but it's worth thinking about growth as a top line indicator of national success. And for business people, they'll understand the metaphor here. The bottom line, where most people evaluate the success of the performance of their economy is not the growth figure that's published in the statistics in the newspaper. It's basically whether their standard of living progresses. And standard of living has an income element, has a job opportunity aspect to it, has economic security, and also quality of life. And I think policymakers first have to more explicitly recognize that that is indeed the bottom line north star, if you will, for the compass setting. Secondly, we, through this research, identified 15 areas of policy. It tends to be structural and institutional strength and incentives in these 15 different areas, which are actually quite important, particularly important, for driving growth with equity. And this is in effect this policy ecosystem, this structural policy ecosystem. It cuts across infrastructure, labor, education, corruption, basic services in the health field, social protection, there's a whole panoply of things where you have win-wins between growth and equity. And most governments don't really think about that as an ecosystem of policy that deserves to have a similar level of attention as the traditional focus of finance ministers and chief economic advisors, which is macro-genomic policy, fiscal and monetary policy, and trade ministers, which is trade policy, and the like. Those latter elements of policy are absolutely crucial because they're critical for driving growth, but this ecosystem of structural and institutional strength across these different areas is in effect the implicit income distribution system of an economy. It's how you can infuse your growth process with more equity, if you will, instead of just trying to compensate for it after the fact. So we've laid that out as a framework. We think that the basic bottom line here is that it behooves governments that are trying to solve this puzzle to cultivate this institutional strength, this structural policy ecosystem over time and to maintain it, look where they're strong or weak relative to their peers. And that in effect constitutes that rebalancing of policy priorities constitutes a new growth model, if you will, a new mental map. And then finally, what we've done here is suggest that, okay, it's one thing to have the framework and the new mental model and a new compass setting of living standards, the next thing you need is basically good information like a business. You've got a big problem in a business, very often what you do is you try to benchmark. Who's doing it well? How do I stack up against that? And so we put some cross-country information covering 109 countries in here in all of these different dimensions to let people look at it. And the last thing is you also need a performance metric. And so what's a good performance metric for progress and living standards? GDP is just a part of that puzzle. We need a larger one. So we've laid out a dashboard of 12 key KPIs, key performance indicators, and we provide the data for all the countries. We roll it up into a single index and something called the inclusive development index, and we let countries see where they stand on inclusive development relative to where they rank in the world on GDP. And these are all basically just a toolbox to help governments. And by that toolbox, you're triggering action, we hope. And we see a very interesting attempt. Minister Mono, I think you actually embarked on to be a test case in this. That's my way of expressing it. Please tell us about your view on this and how you go about it. Well, Rick was nice to say he agreed with the premise of the question. And I'm not sure I'd agree that we embarked to be a test case. I mean, because we embarked with a purpose. The purpose was really to think about how we could do better for Canadians. And really, we set down on this path. It's been a couple of years now. We've been in office for 15 months. So the discussion with Canadians started before that. And it was really very much about talking about the challenge in having an economy that benefited all Canadians, a concern that middle class Canadians in particular, that people that were maybe lower on the income scale were just not seeing the benefits from growth that gave them the optimism that the next generation was going to be better off than the current generation. And if you sort of think to the promise that at least in our country, and I think it's not just Canada, it really is to parents that they can see a future where their children are going to be better off than they were. And that's aspirational, but it's what we've been able to deliver over a period of the post-war generations. So we saw really a change in the sense that that promise was really not being realized for the middle class, that the benefits of growth were really accruing much more to those at the top of society. And so we embarked on thinking about in our context, what could we do to make a difference for middle class Canadians that would create a positive circle where we created a sense of optimism because the families could see that they were doing better, which creates then the willingness to make the investments that are going to allow the economy to keep growing. So it is a circle that we're trying to achieve. And we started by thinking very specifically about middle class Canadians that were facing challenges and how we could help them. So the report for us is going to be enormously helpful as we move forward, as we think about benchmarking. But our starting point was to create a positive experience, a positive sense for Canadians. We lowered taxes on the middle class and we very explicitly did it at the same time as we raised taxes on the top 1%. We said that the equation that had been in place for the last generation had been starting not to work. And so that's how we went out and talked to Canadians. We said we're going to make a difference for you and it's going to be a progressive in terms of taxation. In doing that, we helped nine million Canadians who have lower tax rates now and 1% who have higher tax rates. And then we looked at the benefits that we have currently for Canadian citizens that were universal and the one that's had the biggest impact is our childcare benefits. We had a few different childcare benefits and the most important one was a universal benefit going to all Canadians, irrespective of wealth, meaning it included the most wealthy. And we took that, we decided to means test it, we added more money to it because we felt that was a place where we could have a real impact and significantly changed outcomes for lower and middle income Canadians. So to give you context, it's thousands of dollars on an after tax basis for a woman, a single woman with two children. So a big difference in her situation if she's earning 30 or $40,000. So a really material change there and what it's going to do in metrics, in calendar year 2017, we will see a 40% reduction in child poverty in our country versus three years ago. So a very significant change. And so creating that sense of optimism, we think is really important as we embark on growth initiatives. So as we think about how we're gonna grow the economy, we promise to make significant investments in infrastructure, infrastructure that would help people today but really create a more productive economy for tomorrow. We recognize that that's important, but without having the confidence of the population to say we're gonna make those investments, they're gonna make your life different, we might not get the public support. So we hope that we can be a beacon to show that inclusive growth is absolutely possible, but you need to take decisions that deal with the actual issue on the table and that is that there are people who feel like they are not as well off as they expected to be and therefore their confidence is gonna be less. Starting to do this with Canadians, we're having positive results, we think that that will beget more positive results and allow us to continue investing in the future. That's the goal. But it's a very compelling case and also to be discussing this with two finance ministers. We're talking about growth, we add the word inclusive, perhaps we don't have to add that word in some years from now because it's so evident that that's what it's about. We are implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, they are all about inclusive growth within planetary boundaries. We are talking about one national example here. Part of the discussion has been exactly around that. Can we use similar models just in any context? And I guess I'd like to ask you, Minister Gatteta, you're not necessarily dealing with middle income people who are disappointed, you are dealing with perhaps a different point of departure for this work. What are your solutions to this issue and where do you see, if you see similarities to what we just heard? Yeah, thank you very much. I understand what you're saying, I used to work in the government in Canada, but the situation. So we have sort of a Canadians. Yes, so the situation in Rwanda is very, very different. I remember when I left and I went to Rwanda, immediately after the genocide in 1994, I found a situation that you cannot explain. The whole socioeconomic fabric had collapsed, the poverty levels were 78%, the economy had declined by half, inflation at 64%. You can imagine how the situation was at that point. The GDP per capita was 146 US dollars per person. Since that time to today, it has increased five times. We are now coming to 740 US dollars per capita. We are aiming to become a middle income country. Now from there, we had to have the two track economic development. One that would grow the economy so that we can get the benefit out of the economic growth. Another one that would address the poverty levels. From there, we have really been working on the poverty levels and two years ago, the extreme poverty was at 16%, the overall poverty was at 9%. And our target is by 2020 to make sure that there's no extreme poverty and the poverty levels generally should be below 20%. That's our target and that's how we work. And the first thing is, before even you talk about the inclusive development, you have to understand your society. What are their needs? How really, what are the key issues? And to do that, we do the measurement. And I think you're right. Only looking at GDP per capita would really not be sufficient. It's good, but it's not sufficient. It shows you how the economy is growing. But then for us, we look at so many other elements. From human development index to human poverty index, we look at the gender-related development index because for us, gender is very, very important. Then we do the survey, the household survey that give us showing the income distribution and where it is located in each district, in each sector of the country and also in which groups of the people. So once we look at all that, and at the same time, we combine it with access because for us, access is very important. Access to water and sanitation, access to electricity, access to education, access to health. For health now, we have the universe covered for everybody in Wanda. We have the two tier system. If you are working, they deduct money from your salary. If you are not working, you have another program that caters for the rest of the people. So meaning that actually any benefit would be coming back to address access. We also look at access to finance. We also look at access to ICT because ICT is now a tool to be used by almost everyone. We look at access to transport and so forth. And then from there, that's when we say, as a government, how do we invest our money? How do we invest the public money to address the key problems that we see in our society? Let me just give you an example how we address it. There was the issue of land and when you are promoting access to finance and we realized that the women didn't actually own anything. They didn't, the land was owned by men. So we had to reform the law to make sure that women have access to land. And now the 18% of all the land in the country is owned by men. But for women, only it's 26% and the rest is shared land and government. Meaning they can use the title deeds to access money from the banking system. Initially they couldn't. So those are the kind of roadblocks that we are trying to eliminate to make sure that we can solve some of the issues of our society. So over time, we also innovate to make sure that we assist those at the lower end. At the lower end, you have created a program and I was looking at the Canadian program, for example, of social welfare. Where it caters for those that are really disadvantaged. In our case, we don't have the money that can care from the central government. So we created a social protection program of which actually part of the money is borrowed from the World Bank and from others and then also we put the government budget to make sure that we can do two things. Those people who are disadvantaged but who have the energy to work. We provide the skills, we provide resources so that they can really graduate out of poverty. Others who cannot because they are too old and all that, those are the only ones who are supported, who get direct support. So we had to make sure that we cat up for the entire population. From the lower end up to the upper end and we measure accordingly. Every year we do the measurement to see exactly what are the remaining gaps so that we can be able to fill them. So what we are talking about really inclusive development. If you don't address it one way or the other it will hit back. And it has hit back. So we have some 10 minutes for questions. So I would like to invite questions from the audience. Can I see a hand please? Take the opportunity now to challenge this influential stewards of inclusive growth. Yes, please. And please present yourself. Yes, I'm the principal and vice chancellor of McGill University. I think we all agree this is a very important goal. And the big challenge is to achieve it in reasonably good time. So what I'm asking you is what are the measures that you're taking that you can say this will move the needle. This will change the situation say in five years as opposed to 10, 15. In my field we know that education is an important thing but it's a long term. What are the initiatives that we'll be delivering in shorter times? So we can allow for two more questions and ask our panelists to respond to them. Yes, we have one and please again. I think you waved, yes you did. Please present yourself. So Sean Osborne, the president and CEO of the Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship. We teach middle school age kids how to be entrepreneurs. Just curious if part of the programs that you look at implementing include education. Okay, so we have questions around measurements not short term but within five years and if we include education. Do we have another question? Yes, please. Hello, Peter Vanham, global leadership fellow at the World Economic Forum. So I heard talking about a two track plan for economic policy one based on growth the other one based on eradicating poverty or strengthening the middle class I guess in the case of Canada. My question would be is there a consensus about that also in the country that faces the most problematic situation right now the United States that indeed raising taxes or spending more public money is needed or is wished for to help the middle class strengthen. I've heard more talk about pro-growth plans than about the tax raising and public money spending part of it. That's an issue that has been discussed very much over these days in Davos the kind of context in which we are talking about growth and if society is going away or going in to try to solve this issue. So I think it's a mixture of questions and I'm not going to divide them between you. So I will allow all of you to respond and you can, we allow them to pick and choose but please try to respond to all of them and I will start where I was ending I will start with Minister Gatteta. Yeah, thank you so much. The question on quick wins is very, very important for us and the question on quick wins where I could give you so many examples of the initiatives that we are doing. Let me just pick maybe three of them. One of them for the quick wins we know that education is very, very important but we know that education requires a lot more than the university graduates. Actually you find that the, if I just give an ordinary example that we see for each construction site, for one engineer you need so many planners, you need so many electricians, you need so many and these ones have skills that are not university graduates. Now the training, the technical and vocational training becomes very, very important and that's why we focus so that these people come up with quick skills that are going to serve our society. Just let me give you an example after the genocide in Nwanda. We had a problem. We had no capacity at all. So if you go to a construction site almost over 50% are Ugandans. If you go to finance sector, they'll be Kenyans. If you go to do a haircut, they'll be Congolese. If you go to water, they'll be Tanzanian. So you imagine the situation we are in if you had not allowed the people to come in and what we are trying to do now is to see how we can educate massively for all the services that are required by the society and the technical and vocational training becomes a quick win. The second one, we had so many people that I don't know if I'm running out of time. Well, a little bit, but. Okay, so I have so many examples that I wanted to show in terms of access to finance. For women, women for us, women, the gender balance is very, very important and that's why you put it in our constitution whereby we need at least 30% in decision making must be women. It's in our constitution and that's why there are 64% women in parliament and elsewhere in all other institutions it is where about 40%. Now, when it came to access to finance what we did was we put a facility that's going to provide guarantees for women up to 75% so that they should be able to also have access to money with some guarantees because initially they didn't have any kind of assets that you can be proud of. In terms of the very poor people we had to introduce one cow per poor family program and I can tell you this has really changed the whole landscape because this time they can get milk, they can sell, they can get money, they can, it addresses the issues of nutrition, it addresses the issues of fertilizer and in our case it also addresses the issue of unity because in our culture if I give you a cow we are friends forever and for people where they have been genocide this was very, very important. So the cow became a very important symbol for all of us. So I can go on, I have the queens which are very, very important. Thank you for giving concrete examples of that minister and I will now turn to your Canadian colleague. And please, one minute or so. Well, maybe I can take the questions in a different order and start with a question around the potential policies in the United States. My main observation would be that in the United States the outcome of the election reflected anxiety of middle class Americans, middle and lower income Americans that are concerned that the deal isn't working for them. So in a sense we share that concern that we're trying to find ways to make an impact. I can't really opine on their policies but I do think that they are likely to work towards dealing with that issue. I will see how they go about it and our job will be to work with them to talk about how much of an impact we can have working together. Trade has been very positive between Canada and the United States. Many, many Canadian jobs, many, many American jobs are based on our mutual trading opportunities. That will be what we'll try and do as we work together. With respect to short term wins, some of the things I talked about in my opening where they were short term, we lowered taxes immediately. We increased within a short number of months benefits for seniors. So single, impoverished seniors in many cases, immediately got more income. So an immediate impact. The child benefits immediate impact. So we've got some immediate things that allow us to do some of the longer term things that we think are gonna have short term impacts like infrastructure will create jobs but longer term productivity and other longer term things like education. In our system education is a provincial jurisdiction but we believe that our effectiveness over the long term is going to be about education, training, retraining, skills, development. And so we've put in place some significant grant measures to help university students to get an education with less debt at the end, which enables a greater percentage of people to do that. And we will be increasingly talking about skills, how we can identify the skills needed in our economy, how we can help Canadians to know what they should be pointing towards as they do their studies or their training or their retraining. And thinking about how we can intervene in that effort to make sure that as people think about lifelong learning because they'll have multiple careers that we can intervene at the right times through information, through training initiatives that will make a difference. So it is a program with short and long term aspects that we hope will have a positive impact on growth but importantly on inclusive growth. Thank you, Minister. And maybe one thing if I can say just one on education that which maybe I didn't elaborate. When we started it was very difficult. If a parent would be paying for own kids and now where we have reached is that we have the universal free primary and secondary education. To reach that level is showing the how we have invested just from the growth. This is the benefit of the growth that has been happening. At least we have reached that level where we have universal up to the secondary level education. And I would love to continue this discussion. We've just started, but now we just have to end. 30 seconds, Rick. I think we've just heard some really concrete and encouraging examples of a different kind of way of generating growth. You know, they were not talking about, well, we've got to depreciate our currency and try to build up an export surplus. Not talking about, well, we need to kind of cut interest rates as far as we can and put some quick fiscal stimulus in there. These are ways of, would be just sort of engineering into the growth process itself and domestic much more resilient, sustainable type of way you generate growth. And that is a new growth and development agenda, which I think is very hopeful for the world. And that's ultimately Charlotte to end. The constructive response to a lot of the political pressure, whether you're in a developing country or in an advanced country of addressing people's fundamental needs, which has improved living standards. Thank you very much, all of you, for being concrete, talking to the point and for you to be here. Thank you, audience online. Thank you, audience in the room. And let's get out and inspire others to act and not just to talk. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.