Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

It was raised that a bit of a problem is that a lot of families aren't aware of the benefits, and I'm wondering why in this day and age there isn't some sort of automatic notice that goes, with the passing of a veteran, to Veterans Affairs or however that would work to signal that the family needs to be communicated with about benefits.

[John W. Boerstler]

Here in the United States, there are a lot of private cemeteries, and, at the end of the day, they have to run a business. So if they have a family plot and they happen to be a veteran, they're not going to go and advocate for them to be buried at the VA cemetery, because they want the revenue. I know it comes down to business at the end of the day, and the funeral business is big here. So I think that it's more of dealing with that private versus public and just the awareness as you said. The government's not going to take proactive measures to notify the family of these occurrences, unfortunately.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I see. Thanks so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to come back to some of the things you said. We have talked about the fact that post-World War II vets seem to do better. You referenced that support system with the GI Bill, their ability to go to school longer, and the supports that were in place. I think that was probably also true for Canadian veterans.

We had support systems for veterans coming back. They could buy a farm, get a loan, or go to school. That seems to have gone by the wayside to a degree. The social safety net that followed World War II is breaking down.

Do you think that breaking down of the social safety net is part of the issue? I'll let you answer that and then I'll go to my next question.

[John W. Boerstler]

Extensive [Technical difficulty—Editor] government on the federal side, comparatively, I think, to many European and even the Canadian system of governance, but absolutely I think it's more just a general awareness of veterans.

The Vietnam War really soured the American people on what service meant in our country. Only recently did the American public wake up and realize that you don't have to support the war to support the warrior. Unfortunately, it's taken us all too long to realize that as a people.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

You talked about various private sector partners in what you do. I wondered about that specifically, because the private sector, as you pointed out with regard to burials, expects a certain return. Does that create any problems? Is that a barrier to veterans? Do they need to have a certain amount of financial resources when dealing with that private sector component? Is anyone shut out because they don't have the money?

[John W. Boerstler]

Absolutely. I think we have access to more services than typical civilians do, and it's just a matter of navigating an extensive system of services and resources. It becomes complex and frustrating for veterans when they transition out of the military, especially when they're dealing with the support system that they've had for four or 20 years on base, and they return to a community that has nothing of the kind. That is daunting for someone who has been in that situation for a long time.

I think it's really just a matter of education, awareness, and helping them to navigate that system much more successfully by making them take a needs assessment, addressing those needs, and then triaging them on the back end and making sure that the agencies then follow up on that referral.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

In terms of those corporate partners, how do you find them? Do they come to you, or have they been approached by you specifically?

[John W. Boerstler]

A lot of times, yes. It's really because of the network we've created.

The organization that I run is called NextOp. We were founded by energy and construction executives who really wanted to pipeline more military talent into those sectors, specifically because they were facing a skills gap in leadership.

When they created the organization, they basically put the word out to all of their colleagues. Everything is local, local, local, as we've been talking about. We literally have corporate partners knocking on our door when they find out about this great opportunity and sending us the opportunities. Then we match them with the veterans who are qualified for those opportunities.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

We used to do that in the city where I come from. We had a base there, and some incredible talent from that base went into upper management roles locally. The problem, or I guess the concern, was that it was rather a hierarchy. It didn't seem to always translate down to the lower ranks, and that's a problem. I take it that your organization does make the effort to translate this opportunity down to the lower ranks of service.

[John W. Boerstler]

Absolutely. We focus only on middle enlisted personnel. We do not focus on officers or senior enlisted personnel. Because they have networks, degrees, and leadership skills, they typically make a faster and more successful transition into higher-paying jobs. There are many for-profit recruiting firms that are going after that talent proactively, but they're leaving out the 85% to 90% of the total force who are middle enlisted service members, and that's who we focus on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Ms. Lambropoulos.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I know you have a lot of experience seeing the different programs that are offered in Europe as well, which we haven't touched on as much in today's discussion. You seem to have the most experience with Denmark, and I was wondering if you can give us three of their best practices that you haven't yet implemented in Texas.

[John W. Boerstler]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] Their Veteran Centre is fairly innovative. The reason we picked Denmark first is that they have the highest casualty rate among the ISAF forces in Afghanistan per capita, which shocks a lot of people. Really, they send only combat troops, which is why they have the highest casualty rate.

They also have a population that is very comparable to that of the greater Houston area, where I live. They have about six million people in the country, and we have about six million people in Houston, so it was pretty interesting to make the direct comparison. They have comparable numbers of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans as well.

The Veteran Centre system they have set up through the Ministry of Defence is a good example of how federal-level government can implement community-based transition. They have these centres spread out across Denmark which address employment, mental health, family issues, and benefits issues all in one place—one-stop shopping, so to speak. Also, because they are a very rich country and a very small country, they are able to do that effectively. It's a good case study for state- or local-level organizations to potentially implement.

Obviously, earlier we talked about the chaplains and the psychologists not being rank-holding officers. That was very important.

As well, just the general investment by the Danish Parliament, by creating a veterans policy in 2010 and addressing, really, the major issues that confronted Danish veterans in their integration into civilian life from Afghanistan, was very proactive. It really showed the resolve of not only the elected officials but also the people to really help these individuals when they return home.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Have you had the chance to look at the Canadian system and compare it to the American system? Obviously we have many different areas. We have a lot of rural communities, and it's more difficult to reach out to our veterans. What are your comments on the Canadian system?

[John W. Boerstler]

I would love to do a comparative study on the U.S. versus Canada, even in just a couple of different communities we can pick out. We've talked to a couple of corporations to fund this, particularly McKesson. They have a large footprint in Canada. I and one of my colleagues, who went with me to Denmark and the U.K. as a Marshall fellow, engaged those individuals at the C-Suite level to invest in the project, but we haven't made a ton of progress. Any recommendations you have for us to potentially do a collaborative project on this would be incredibly interesting, and I would love to be a part of it.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Thank you.

That ends our round today.

John, on behalf of the committee, I'd just like to thank you for your passion and what you brought to the committee today. It's been exciting, and the ideas coming forward have opened all our eyes here today. If there is anything we can offer on our side, contact our clerk, and we can get that to you. Also, if you could get those couple of things we asked for, or if there is anything you want to add for the committee, get it to our clerk and he'll distribute it to the committee.

Again, thank you, sir, and have a great week.

[John W. Boerstler]

Have a great one. I appreciate it. [Technical difficulty]

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

That ends the meeting today.

The meeting is adjourned.