John Barritt in the House of Assembly on Friday, March 17.

Mr. Speaker, it was a week ago that the Minister for the Environment the Hon Arthur Hodgson made a plea on the floor of this House that we tone down the rhetoric and engage in a meaningful dialogue on the complex issue of sustainable development.

I agree. We should tone down the rhetoric - and I might add, the political posturing. That said, let me also say - and I hope the honourable member can embrace this call - this should not prevent us from saying what we mean and meaning what we say.

In joining the honourable member in his call, it is perhaps fitting and appropriate that I should respond because I was the one who reacted quickly and strongly to the interview he gave in The Royal Gazette which also sparked off controversy.

Newspaper interviews, indeed newspapers themselves, are an imperfect medium for expression. To a great extent, we cannot control the questions we are asked or the way in which our answers are reported. That is the province of the reporter, and the essence of a free press. The headline then falls to yet another (third) party, an editor. In my case, my reported comments received the headline "Hodgson accused of having Hitler tendencies''. I should have known my comments would attract such a headline. Indeed, it would be fair to say that I knew that when I made my remarks.

I stand by them. I was not misreported. They were at the time an honest, albeit strong reaction to what I read. I thought - and still do - that any analysis of our current ills which lays the blame on foreigners who have come here to live and work is simplistic in the extreme and, as I said, comes dangerously close to a Hitler-like analysis of the problems and the cure.

I did not accuse the Minister of being a Hitler. I repeat. I did not accuse the Minister of being a Hitler. I repeat because some people choose to believe for whatever reason that I did make such an accusation.

That said, I also recognise - as do other members of this House, on both sides - that there are those in our community who believe, quite strongly in some case, that there are "too many foreigners in Bermuda''; that they get the best or better jobs; that they are depriving Bermudians of moving up the ladder; that they are driving up rents. In short, that they are adversely affecting the quality of life in Bermuda.

Those are all the negatives - in some cases, some of them true; some of them not so true; and some of them untrue. But when we focus only on the negatives, we tend to overlook the positive - and like most things in life the one usually comes with the other.

In our case, the successes we once enjoyed in tourism, and now international business, have come at a price.

It is the price we have paid for being successful, not unsuccessful - and the success of which I speak is the general economic success we as a small community of 20 square miles, a dot in the Atlantic Ocean, have enjoyed without any resources other than the natural beauty with which Bermuda is blessed and the resourceful ingenuity of its people.

This general economic success - at which so many of our visitors marvel, if not envy - was not forced on Bermudians. Many Bermudians, many, many Bermudians, willingly embraced economic growth and the opportunities it made available. Much like a rising tide that lifts all yachts it gave many the opportunity to get ahead; to have a second or third job; to earn more money; to own a piece of the rock with a small apartment to help pay off the mortgage; or the means to obtain a better education, here and abroad; to acquire more of the so-called good things in life - TVs, VCRs, cable, satellite dishes, the latest fashions, a sporty car and to travel the world, at least once a year, although I believe the national average is at least two trips a year off the rock. In short, parents sought to give effect to their natural desire to provide a better life for their children and grandchildren.

That is not to say that this has been true for everybody, but it has by and large been true for a good number of families, some of whom have had to work hard and have made sacrifices along the way.

We need only to compare the Bermuda of today to the Bermuda we had 30 years ago. But not everybody is that old, not everyone can make the comparison.

There are today younger generations for whom the only comparison is the here and now, who tend to measure what they have by what they do not have and what they expect they should have.

If only it were that simple.

I firmly believe expectations can only be met if we have a strong economy, a strong economy which continues to create opportunities and avenues for advancement.

Recently, we have heard two Government Ministers, the honourable member Mr.

Hodgson supported by his colleague the honourable Paula Cox, Minister for Immigration, comment that we should be looking to moderate economic growth.

There is an assumption there that Bermuda's economy is growing. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I do not know on what statistics they were relying but the last time I looked economic growth in Bermuda was moderating. I refer to none other than the 1999 Economic Review - the most recent statistics published by the Ministry of Finance - that for the first time in a long time Bermuda experienced negative growth in both tourism and international business in the economic year 1998/1999.

This development should give us all cause for concern - including, and in particular, the Government of the day of this country.

As has been stated so often, inside and out side this House, the future success of Bermuda, whatever shape it takes, depends to a large extent on our ability to attract visitors to our shores and to make them feel welcome, whether in tourism or international business. Indeed, we have a somewhat enthusiastic Minister of Telecommunications and e-Commerce who has picked up the baton from the previous UBP Government, and who appears to be working hard at developing a third pillar to our economy - which could, indeed should dovetail nicely with our role as an offshore financial centre. Success in this area will also be critical to the future of local as well as international companies. But there is also a two-fold irony here which cannot be overlooked: 1. This is cutting-edge stuff and we are going to need offshore expertise - and capital - to get it going.

2. This will not be a labour-intensive industry, at least not in the traditional sense as we know it, and it will be a way of doing business that is going to rely - and prosper - on fewer not more employees who are very, very skilled and who are currently in demand throughout the world.

If the Government is serious about the development of e-commerce, they need to share these facts of e-life with people and, just as importantly, to prepare them for the electronic wave of the not-so-distant future.

This future incidentally, which is just around the corner, is not bricks and mortar - but rather clicks and mortar, and less mortar too. This is where we need a vision, a plan, to concentrate our efforts, quickly; to be, dare I say it, progressive.

But if the trumpet sound an uncertain note how shall we go forth? It may be very tempting and appealing to try and blame the previous Government for failing to educate people on this front, but that would be misleading. It is only in recent years, very, very recent years, that we have seen the technological revolution take hold, in the form of accessible Internet and e-mail, and it is advancing at a rapid rate -more rapid than even some of the larger more advanced nations can cope.

If we want to get ahead, if we truly want to compete in the wide world that is the global village, accelerated preparation and re-direction is key.

It will mean outside expertise, outside capital, at the outset, and perhaps for a time to come, and we must do all that we can to ensure that it happens to give our people and future generations the opportunity to advance and compete. Indeed, it is our duty to provide them with the opportunity and the choice.

Choice, Mr. Speaker, choice.