The International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding

1. The International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding

2. A little History - • Emergency management officials from Maine, Rhode Island, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, FEMA and Emergency Planning Canada established themselves as the informal International Emergency Management Group when they met in September,1987. • This group continued to regularly meet to deal with issues of common concern such as discussing hurricane preparations. • The Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP) on June 1998 passed Resolution 23-5, endorsing the adoption of an emergency management compact to be signed at the earliest opportunity. The IEMG group was known to the NEG/ECP, was identified as the consultant group and were tasked with drafting the required document. • In October 1998 and June 2000 the IEMG officials met in Portland. In the June 2000 meeting legal advisors from the IEMG jurisdictions also attended to assist in drafting the compact. • In July 2000 the NEG/ECP approved and adopted the IEMAMOU that was drafted by the IEMG and their legal advisors. Maine, New Hampshire, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island signed the MOU at the Conference. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and Quebec signed letters of intent to fully participate.

3. The Remaining History • The August 2002 Resolution 27-3 and the September 2003 Resolution 28-2 of the Conference of NEG/ECP both reaffirmed support for IEMG. • On January 4, 2007, Senate Joint Resolution 13 was passed by the US Congress consenting to the IEMAMOU. • Finally, on Wednesday, December 26 2007, then President George W. Bush signed into law Senate Joint Resolution 13.

5. The IEMAMOU (aka the “Compact”)Purpose and Authorities Article 1 • The MOU recognizes that the party jurisdictions that endorse the IEMAMOU might not be able to handle an emergency or disaster. As such, they would need to call upon the other party jurisdictions for assistance. Mutual assistance was the primary purpose for the Compact. • The other purpose was the need to plan and train together. If we were going to assist one another, we needed to know each other. We needed to know each other’s capabilities and resources. We certainly can learn from each other. • Any jurisdiction that adopts the Compact is a “party jurisdiction”. Any state or province can “enact or adopt” the Compact/MOU.

6. General Implementation Article II • The beliefs that are the foundation for the Compact/MOU are: • 1. Because emergencies may exceed a party jurisdiction’s capabilities, intergovernmental cooperation is essential; • 2. Outside resources, i.e. those from another state or province, may be needed to deal with an emergency or disaster; • 3. The “prompt, full and effective utilization of resources of the participating jurisdictions” is the principle on which the entire Compact/MOU is to be understood and interpreted; • 4. In each party jurisdiction, the person who is responsible for emergency management is assigned the responsibility for formulating “inter-jurisdictional mutual aid plans and procedures” and to recommend what is required in that jurisdiction to implement the Compact.

7. Article III Party Jurisdiction’s Responsibilities • Each province and state has three responsibilities: • 1. To formulate procedural plans and programs for inter-jurisdictional cooperation; see A to G. • 2. If Requesting assistance, a party jurisdiction’s authorized representative may request assistance from another party jurisdiction. If that is done, then this section states what is required. • 3. There shall be frequent consultation among party jurisdiction officials known as the IEMG and other appropriate representatives from the party jurisdictions. There is to be a free exchange of information, plans and resource records relating to emergency capabilities, as long as these are authorized by our respective laws.

8. Article IV Limitation • Remember in Article II, that the “prompt, full and effective utilization of resources of the participating jurisdictions” is the principle on which the entire Compact/MOU is to be understood and interpreted. Article IV places a limitation on this. • If your jurisdiction is requested to assist another party jurisdiction, you are to respond as soon as possible BUT in responding you “may withhold or recall resources” to the extent necessary to provide “reasonable protection” for your own jurisdiction. • This Article also deals with how the receiving jurisdiction is to deal with the forces from the assisting jurisdictions in emergencies or in training exercises: • The same “powers, duties, rights, privileges and immunities” that apply in the requesting jurisdiction to similar forces shall apply to the responding forces from the assisting jurisdictions. • The command and control of the assisting emergency forces remains with their leaders. • The organizational units however, are under the operational control of the emergency officials in the jurisdiction receiving assistance. • The receiving jurisdiction has to inform the assisting jurisdictions of the “specific moment” when the services from the assisting jurisdictions are no longer required.

9. Licenses and Permits Article V • Any person who has a license, certificate or other permit that is issued by any party jurisdiction for professional, mechanical or other skills, shall have that license, certificate or permit recognized by the requesting jurisdiction, when that person responds to a request for assistance. • This licensed person, or certificate or permit holder can then render assistance in the requesting jurisdiction, operating under their license, certificate or permit, in their qualified area. • These two previous points are subject to any conditions or limitations that may exist in the requesting jurisdiction. For example, in NL we had to enact specific legislation to allow the licenses, certificates and permits of emergency forces from responding jurisdictions under the IEMAMOU to be accepted and recognized in our province. Prior to this legislation we could not comply with this part of the MOU/Compact.

11. Liability Article VI • This Article also deals with issues when emergency forces are responding to a request for assistance by a party jurisdiction. • Any province or state that responds to a request for assistance by another party jurisdiction under the MOU/Compact becomes an agent of the requesting jurisdiction for tort liability and immunity purposes. By becoming an agent of the requesting jurisdiction, the assisting persons “stand in the shoes” of an employee of the receiving jurisdiction and are afforded the same statutory tort and immunity protections. • Tort liability refers to liability for a breach of a duty of care, which causes injury or damage to a person who was owed that duty of care. When responding under the Compact/MOU, emergency forces are covered by the statutory tort liability protections of the requesting jurisdiction. • Immunity means complete protection from liability. Again, any statutory immunity protections of the requesting jurisdiction, if they exist, apply to the emergency forces of the assisting jurisdiction when the emergency forces of that assisting jurisdiction respond to a request for assistance. • Additionally, anyone who renders aid in another jurisdiction under the MOU/Compact, is not liable for any act or omission on their part, as long as that act or omission was done in good faith. There is no protection for willful misconduct, gross negligence or recklessness in the MOU/Compact.

12. Supplementary Agreements Article VII • States and provinces are free to enter into agreements with other jurisdictions. • At the time the MOU/Compact was drafted it was expected that such other agreements might be necessary, to deal with evacuation provisions, reception of persons and the exchange of machinery and personnel. • Agreements that are in place when a party jurisdiction enacts or adopts the MOU/Compact are not affected.

13. Workers’ Compensation and Death BenefitsArticle VIII • The workers’ compensation and death benefits that we each have in our jurisdictions continue to apply to our emergency forces when they go elsewhere, to respond to a request for assistance by a party jurisdiction under the MOU/Compact. • If first responders from Newfoundland and Labrador go to Maine to assist, and a first responder from NL is injured or killed, that first responder or his or her heirs cannot claim under the workers’ compensation and death benefits of the State of Maine. The workers’ compensation and death benefits of NL would apply.

14. Reimbursement Article IX • Workers’ compensation and death benefits cannot be claimed under this Article. • A party jurisdiction that provides aid can request the party jurisdiction that received the aid to reimburse them for any loss, damage or expense incurred in providing that aid. • However, the aiding party jurisdiction does not have to claim any costs and may donate its personnel and equipment. • Any two or more party jurisdictions may enter into an agreement to provide for the costs of providing assistance. Any party jurisdictions that frequently assist each other should provide for the costs of such assistance in an agreement.

15. Article X Evacuation • Each party jurisdiction is required to initiate a process to prepare and maintain evacuation plans for the movement and reception of evacuees, into its territory or across its territory. • The standard that is required is according to the capability and power of that party jurisdiction. • The party jurisdiction from which the evacuees came continues to have the “ultimate responsibility” for those evacuees. • When the emergency or disaster ends, it is the party jurisdiction from which the evacuees came that has the responsibility for the repatriation of those evacuees.

16. ImplementationArticle XI • The MOU/Compact is already in effect because jurisdictions have adopted it. • In each of our countries there are different ways of enacting or adopting the Compact. • If a party jurisdiction wishes to withdraw from the MOU/Compact, the withdrawal is not effective until 30 days after the governor or premier of the withdrawing jurisdiction gives notice to the other premiers and governors of the withdrawal. • All party jurisdictions shall have copies of the Compact in both French and English. • Copies of any supplementary agreements shall also be provided to each of the party jurisdictions at the time of their approval.

17. Severability Article XIIInconsistency of Language Article XIII andAmendment Article XIV • If any provision of the MOU/Compact is declared to be unconstitutional or inapplicable, such invalidity or unenforceability attaches only to that provision. All of the other provisions of the MOU/Compact continue in full force and effect. • There is no effect on the MOU/Compact if there are insubstantial differences in the form or language as various states and provinces adopt the MOU/Compact. • The MOU/Compact may be amended by the party jurisdictions. Voting is dealt with in our By-Laws. • The International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding was signed at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on July 18, 2000 at 4:40 pm.

18. ANY QUESTIONS?