 Good morning. I'm Marcia Joyner and we are Navigating the Journey. Navigating the Journey is dedicated to exploring the options and choices for end of life care and to assist people to talk about their wishes. It's time to transform our culture so that we shift from not talking about dying to talking about it. It's time to share the way we want to live our lives at the end of our lives and it's time to communicate about the kind of care we want and don't want for ourselves. We believe that the place for this to begin is not in the intensive care unit. Together we explore the various paths to life's ending. Together we can make these difficult conversations easier. Together we can make sure our own wishes and those of our loved ones are expressed and respected. If you're ready to join us, we ask you. Navigate the journey. You know, we invite people of different religions and traditions and even politicians to talk about the end of life and their customs and their culture. But today we are asking a very dear friend of mine, Carl Campania. He's a host of Think Tech Hawaii, mover, shakers and reformers. As you know, we've been supporting medical aid and dying bill through the legislature. The bill is one of many included in the Democratic Party's platform. Therefore we will talk to Carl about all of those bills that do have an impact on the end of our lives, on our daily lives, on our future lives. Carl is 20 years of this kind of experience and exploring all of the things that matter about the environment about our lives. Again, Carl, my dear friend and all of you on Think Tech you know Carl. Those who watch. Those who watch. Yes, those who watch. Thank you. Thank you so much. I appreciate coming on the show. You know, we want to talk about, of course, this is part of the conversation about the end of life. All of these things impact us daily. For me to say I am thoroughly disappointed with the legislature and not only our bill that we've been supporting but the other bills that should have been like those that impact the environment, the food we eat, for instance, the pesticides. Tell me, well, you know better than I do all of these bills that impact us. I know many of them. There were a lot of bills and so every year some of the range of 3,000 or so bills get introduced. And that gets narrowed down through the entire process to ending up with sometimes a couple hundred bills that pass. So how do they go through that process and what gets eliminated and why does it get eliminated? We don't always know the answers to that. Sometimes a bill never gets heard. So something gets introduced, had a whole bunch of co-signers from all of these other legislators and it just never gets heard by one or another committee. So it gets bottled up somewhere in the process. It got lowered in the priority list by the committee chair and the committee chair just never got to it, whether it was intentional or not. Never got to it so it never got hurt. There were a number of bills that that happened to. Tell me this, what did you say, 3,000, about 3,000 a year? Who reads all of them? Do they get read? Seriously, do they get read? When I was listening to the testimony for the last hearing on medical aid and dying, it was clear they had not read the bill. It was very clear that they had not read the bill. Yeah, from my experience working in the session, I did work for an entire session one time a couple of years ago. And the way that happens is all of these bills come through. And 3,000 bills, some senate, some house, the division is not always clear and it isn't just a consistency. So some come from the senate, some come from the house, it combined 3,000. So the ones, I was working in Cattola's office of one session and therefore I got to see, as I was part of the legislative process with his office, I got to see the bills that came through. And the process works. It's actually a little disconcerting at first when you realize that what happens is this train of folders come through, the little red folders, these train of folders come through with the bill, a signature page and a summary. And the summary is what gets read. And then they look at it and say, oh, who's introducing this? Oh, it's being introduced by this guy. Okay, I like that guy or yeah, I'm going to need that guy for one of my bills later. So I'm going to co-sponsor or co-sign or co-sponsor or even co-introduce this legislation with them. And how they do that is they sign their name and they underline it or they just sign their name. And that indicates whether it's a co-introducer or a co-sponsor. And therefore then they sign it off after reading the summary and they send it back. And it goes on to the next legislator until they figure out whoever is going to do that until their deadline comes. Their deadline comes and they have to take however many bills they've been, you know, per committee or per legislator. Each legislator based on their committee and based on their role has a certain number of bills that they can introduce. So they all reach their limit at some point and then they submit them for the decking. So what gets read is the summary at this stage. At the very beginning introductory stage, the summary gets read. The language itself of the actual bill, though it gets written primarily by the Majority Office or Minority Office or by the Legislative Reference Bureau, Research Bureau, they write it. But the summary is what gets read in the initial phases. And that's all anybody reads in the beginning. As the process goes on, once it gets into committee, then they go through all of the, because it'll eventually get referred to at least one, if not multiple committees. And then at that point it will be heard more. Some people, certainly everyone who's going to provide testimony will have read it. And then they'll provide testimony based on it, whether they have read the entire bill or not. Some people in their testimony will say, I recommend this change or that change or another change. And that's where the stakeholders show up. And they start to say, well, I would be in favor of this except. Right. And that's where language gets changed. And so as you go, eventually, once it narrows down from 3000 and you go through the back and forth process, you get really into once it starts to cross over once and then twice and then towards conference committee is when you actually, now you have finally gone through the language of the bill. So there's many fewer of them at that point. So what I see now is daily the conference committees. Yes, yeah. Yes, right now is when in conference committee is when they're going through and it ends actually on the 4th of May. Right now is where they are going through the final language of all of it and to determine what the priorities are. Number one of all of the bills that are currently there, which ones are in the priority list, and which ones are not, which ones they feel like, you know, within their conference committee deciding they're going to fight for or not, and what language needs to be in there or not in order to get it to pass. Now is when they're doing that. And we don't always know what that conversation. Yes, of course not. Even though they send out the notice, I just how many people do show up to listen to all of that, right? And it's not. Yeah, they do send out the notice. They have to send out the notice. And it is it is a it is not a participatory participatory thing. They discuss it and you're able to hear some of what they discuss and then I know I've been seated in the back listening and you don't get to say it. You don't get to disagree or agree or anything. No, it's a decision making process. What I recommend, though, and in all of these phases is even if it's just a decision making and not a hearing show up show up, especially if you're a stakeholder, especially if you are a subject matter expert, show up because there's a chance that someone of the legislators might actually have a question. And if you're there to help answer the question, you might help advance that bill. So let's look at the bills that we we think should have moved forward and didn't. There's a collective we there. There's there's there's a lot of bills. I have a quick little list here. I'll hit a couple of them. So there's actually a fairly long list. And one thing I'll add is the young progressives are holding tomorrow morning. They're holding a sign way tomorrow's Thursday morning. They're holding a sign waving. You have to go on the Facebook page to see exactly where and what time I think it's early in the morning, where they they're calling it feel the fourth. And what they're trying to do is demonstrate and have a demonstration about these bills that didn't pass or didn't get heard to make our legislators know that there's a number of people that think these should have at least been heard if not passed. So that's one thing that's being done, which is a great thing. We don't do a lot of that in Hawaii. And it would be great. I agree because when we had a paid poll, 80% of the people said yes, they wanted medical aid and dying. When the advertiser did a free poll, 1000 people said yes, we should do this. And yet we sat there and listened. And like I said, the couple legislators said, Well, I didn't think there was enough safeguards. Well, you didn't read it. Yeah. Because the bill, this particular bill based on the Oregon bill and all the other seven states that passed, every time it passed, something new was added new language. Consequently, we had the best bill based on all of the progression. Yeah. So and they didn't read it. Which goes back to, you know, where what what their decision making process is that they didn't read it. Maybe they already decided ahead of time what they want to know what his name, Chris Todd, said he had planned to do it before. But listening to the testimony, he changed his mind. Well, that's interesting. If if the testimony swayed him, that's an important thing. If the testimony swayed him. That's important to know that testimony can sway a legislator. Now, Chris Todd, this is representative Chris Todd. He's new. This is his first session. Yeah. He was appointed to replace Cliffsuji who passed away. So this is his first time through that. So I think that the first time through yes, you tend to want to listen and be more involved and, you know, you have to make a choice as a legislator. Am I going to go with what I think or with what I think my constituents want? Or what and then how does that play with what the testimony says? And are you swayed? You would think that that's maybe how it should work. It's not always clear that that's how that works. So yeah. Okay, so let's let's build what we've got is a medical aid and dying. Right. It was a very comprehensive bill. It really covered a lot of ground. It was important for a number of reasons that have been talked about. As far as Medicaid costs and the impacts there, as far as just sheer compassion and making sure as you're saying at the intro of your show, making sure that the conversation is being had ahead of time instead of when you're in the midst of grief, all important things. And that's what this whole that that's some of the premise of this. So that one, it was going through the process and then it just got dropped. So it was if I understand correctly, it was dropped in the in the health committee. Yeah, deferred. It was deferred by the health committee, which is currently chaired by Dela Albalani, Representative Albalani. So that's that one. In addition, there was, which goes along with that is that there were a couple of universal healthcare or bills that were affiliated with universal healthcare, which is kind of goes hand in hand with some of the medical aid and dying. Right. One of them was calling for universal healthcare. One of them was calling for an investment or or an appropriation for for HHA or the Hawaii Health Authority, which is supposed to be geared towards or that its mission is to create the pathway, the policy pathway towards universal healthcare once again. So it's it all ties together and that would include medical aid and dying. Those never got heard. Also from the health committee, those never got heard at all. So interesting because again, they're part of the Democratic Party platform. So it would be good to at least have a debate or discussion discussion. Yeah. So those go together. In addition, some of the ones that went through that would have been great. Now, there was a huge controversy. A lot of people may be aware of the controversy that happened with the pesticide bill. Oh, yes. It's very hard to know exactly what happened with that. There's a lot of people talking about what they think happened. Yes. But the pesticide bill, it was going through the process. It was in committee. It was in the consumer protection committee. And it got passed through it passed out of the consumer protection committee and was put to the floor for a vote. Or the rumors are that and what had happened was the you know, the chair of that committee changed the language out of committee. We need like all programs. We need to go to break. Okay. But don't go away. Keep that point. We're coming back to will do. Yes. Thank you. Hey, so I'm Crystal. If you haven't tuned into QuokTalk before, you better do it because you're missing out on all the information. We talk about sex. We talk about religion. We talk about everything and nothing. So we've got two gentlemen here going to validate that, right? Greg Kinkley and Roy Chu. What's your take on the importance of talking about these issues? It's very important. It's through, I think, expressing ideas and exchanging ideas that we come to a better understanding of the world and each other. And without that, we live in ignorance and fear. Yeah. Fear is based on ignorance. Amen. Greg. Amen. What more could I say than that? Something in Yiddish. I think it was on a Yiddish. Come listen to QuokTalk Tuesday mornings. Aloha and happy New Year. It's 2017. Please keep up with me on Power Up Hawaii, where Hawaii comes together to talk about a clean and just energy future. Please join me on Tuesdays at one o'clock. Mahalo. We're back with Carl. And we were talking about all of these bills that should or should not, could or could not have gotten through. And we're talking about pesticide. Exactly. What is, what was the bill to do with pesticide? The pesticide bill, what? What was its purpose? From an environmental perspective, we know that anytime you introduce a chemical into the environment, it has an impact. It has an impact on the ground. It has an impact on the vegetation and it has an impact, if it's in the air, can have an impact in, for our lungs and for the lungs of the animals. So it has a significant, and then runoff, as you get into runoff and erosion, it can have an impact into our shorelines and into our drinking water. And so it's a concern. So what we're, what this bill was specifically, it was calling for regulations and disclosure from certainly our larger agri-court businesses, but across the board, saying we are disclosing what chemicals we're using, what pesticides we're using, and what the chemicals are entailed for what we're going to be doing going forward. With all of their crops. So it's just to tell the public what it is. To disclose to the public, this is what we're using. So it wasn't about can or cannot, it was just for your information, this is what, what this is. As a starter, exactly correct. Then you get into the question of, well, whether we want that one or not, or whether we agree with that one. But that would step two. That would be step two, exactly. So yeah, so on its, on its basis, it was about disclosing what was being used. And you would think from a common-sense perspective, oh, you're going to spray something into the ground, spray something the food we might eat, spray something into the air. What is it? It's a chemical. What is it? You disclose it. You would think that that would be. Exactly. My common sense says that's, that's what I want to know. Exactly. Even if I can't pronounce it. Exactly. Exactly. So yeah, so the question is, well, why would you not want to? And that would be the other side. Why would you not want to disclose it? Yeah. You wouldn't want to disclose it because you don't want people to know what it is because people are going to have a problem with it. Well, I think that's why you need to disclose it, because if you think there's going to be a problem. But anyway, with regards to that bill, it was moving through. And as I was mentioning before the break, it actually passed through and was about to go to House floor for a vote. It was suggested, I don't know the truth, I wasn't there. It was suggested that there was a last-minute change to the language done by the chair of the committee, Rep McKelvie. It was being accused of this. And therefore, the House majority leader, Scott Psyche, saw that and said, no, no, no, no, no, no. The way this is currently written is not how it was approved. We're taking that, we're removing this. We're not going to have our members vote on this bill as it is right now. So we took it off, took it right off the floor and it never got a vote. So and a lot of that conversation, it is currently, you would call it deferred at this point. Okay, so we still could come back. It's possible to have it come back. That is the way our biennial process works. So it could come back in January. It's actually recommended that it be looked at and it get tweaked a little bit in the meantime based on the testimony for and against to make sure that maybe it's improved a little. Yes. So yeah. Okay, so what else? Others? You know, there's one that Scott mentioned and that is the suntan. The oxybenzones. Yes. Yes. Because in today's paper, front page of the paper, big article, and it talks about the reef and Maui and how it is deteriorating. So tell us about the suntan lotion and its effect. This is, I can go into that a little bit. A little bit because I, this is the oxy, oxybenzone. I believe what it is. It was actually Willa Speros Bill. He's been actually talking about this and championing this for over a year, saying that we need to do this because it affects our reefs, our coral reefs, it affects our fish and other ocean wildlife. And if you go to Waikiki today, it smells like suntan lotion. It does, actually. And interestingly, some people, some tourists when they come enjoy that smell. That means vacation. Which is fascinating, just, you know, there too. But anyways, there have been some studies written about that actually makes people feel that, oh, I'm on vacation because I can smell the vacation. That's part of it. You smell the ocean, you smell the suntan lotion, you're feeling like you're having, which is why they all have different aromas too. So anyway, so that bill was intended to make sure that we are banning and or disclosing based on the chemicals inside of the sunscreen suntan lotions because of their negative environmental impacts on our shorelines, our reefs and our wildlife in the oceans. Again, you would think that would make sense because you're damaging the beauty of paradise. And that's what we sell. And that's what we sell, exactly. So therefore well, what was the problem with it? I would, you know, again, I have not read through all of the testimony on that. And here's an interesting thing though. Even if I did read through all of the testimony, some testimony, I'm not saying this one, some testimony or some bills or resolutions, all of the testimony is in favor and is positive. And it still doesn't pass. It still doesn't pass. Oh dear. And we don't always know why. Again, sometimes it's because, well, within the committee they discussed it and there were too many things and whether they're going to defer it to next year because it's not a priority. They think it can get better. So there are some positive opportunities in there to make something better for next year. Other times, we don't know why. Just well, it was the chair's preference and the chair has the right to say no, we're going to defer that one. Now, again, there's another one that seems to me that should have passed and that was about the regulations, the emergency. What was that one you mentioned? Oh, the national disaster protection. National disaster. Front page of yesterday's paper, aisle ranks worse for health crisis than U.S. average. We're at the bottom of health crisis. Health crisis. And that bill was about the health crisis. There's a number of reasons for that. It has to do with natural disasters and our response to the national disasters. It also has to do with our health care and medical facilities. Which we don't have. Which we don't have enough of and as you and I have talked before and I know you've mentioned on your show before, a lot of that is medical facilities for the rural areas. In doing the research on medical aid and dying, I was horrified to find that rural Hawaii. I mean when you get out of urban Honolulu, there's 286,000 people that don't have facilities. That's island after island, even this island. So they have to drive across the island or if they go to another island to get the care they need. Yeah. Or even here, if you are in Haleiva, Kahuku, where do you go? Especially based on the time of day that you might need to go. It could take you an hour or two hours or so to get to where you need to go. I mean there's Waianae comprehensive. There are facilities, but there are not enough facilities and not everything that is needed. Not all services that may be needed are at all of our facilities. Right. And then what is it? Wahiwai General is like turning out of the 20th century. Oh, because it's been... It's old. It's old. And no one cares. It looks like no one cares. I don't know. And that's a big infrastructure question. Where is the infrastructure investment? Well, it seems to me that since the majority of our legislators live outside of urban Honolulu, that they would think about their constituents, that their constituents would hold them accountable. They can find the money because that's what they do for a living. So, ah, ta-da. Now, what we have to do is make sure that all of those constituents start hounding their legislators to say, hey look, we need you to get on board so we can have these things, this medical care. What good does it do to have Obamacare, to have Medicare if there's no way to go? If there's no clinic, no facility, and let's say you live in Honolulu. How in the world do you get an emergency vehicle up to Honolulu? Yeah. Yeah. It's dangerous. It is. It's dangerous pathway there. It is. Getting to and from it. Yeah. Yeah. Or even in Honolulu to get to Kaiser at 4.30 in the afternoon. Wow. Yeah. You know, it's just. Yeah, it's because it's a parking lot. Yeah. So, you know, all of those things and if our listeners say, well, what does this have to do with the end of life? And our conversation, it has everything to do with the conversation. And you need all of you. I know I'm campaigning. All of you need to call your legislator because these are important things about our day to day lives. You need to call your legislator. He needs or she needs to know your name and that you will call back and you will call back and you will call back. They need to know because we can't just let pesticide bills just slide by. No. And there are many other bills. There's so many other bills that just didn't go through student debt aid, cyber bullying, domestic violence. So many bills that just didn't get that didn't pass and it seems inexplicable. We don't understand why. Yeah. How could that not pass? Yeah. What was it that would make that not passable? It's hard to understand that. Yeah. And any of those environmental things that pretend like it's not happening, when we moved into our house in 1982, I guess it was, the ducks would fly up to the seawall. Today at High Tide, the ducks walk across, walk through the yard. So for anybody that says there's not something going on with the ocean and the waters. You just, you know, you don't have to be a scientist. All you have to do is look at what's going on. The sea level has risen. It's risen. Yeah. When you see, I didn't know ducks were so big until I saw them walk through the yard. It's like, what is that? You know, so again, we're back to our, you've got to call your legislator. Every telephone book, I mean in the telephone book, every legislator is listed. The telephone numbers, and even though the session is ending, they have a staff person all year. Yes. So their numbers are there. And they're supposed to be doing constituent response. Yes. Absolutely. I think one of the keys is knowing not just that you can engage, but how, and how you can also gather together groups, who is the people in order to make sure there's a larger impact, how you can reach out to other entities, other stakeholders, other groups and organizations that similarly agree and make sure that you're all coming together to the legislators in order to have that kind of an impact. They need to know, because they're running crazy, so they need to know we're watching. So I want you. That's a good idea. People to call in and say, we're watching you. We're watching you. Carl, thank you. Thank you for spending the time with me. Thank you for all you do. Thank you. I'm happy to be on the show. Loha. We'll see you next week.