Transcript Slide 1

The International Emergency Management
Assistance Memorandum of Understanding
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.
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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Workers’ Compensation and Death Benefits
Article 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.
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.
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.
Implementation
Article 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.
Severability Article XII
Inconsistency of Language Article XIII and
Amendment 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.
ANY QUESTIONS?