Unearthing
Canadian Complicity:

Excellon Resources, the Canadian
Embassy, and the Violation of Land and
Labour Rights in Durango, Mexico

 Published by MiningWatch Canada and United Steelworkers, February 2015
Writing:
Layout:
Spanish Translation:
Proofreading and Editing:
Cover Photo:

Jen Moore
Jamie Kneen
Olimpia Boido
Jamie Kneen, Doug Olthuis, Miguel Angel Mijangos Leal
Jen Moore

Thanks to the Ejido de La Sierrita de Galeana and Local 309 of the National Union of
Miners and Metal Workers (SNTMMSSRM) for your perseverance and determination to have your rights respected in the face of an unjust mining model being imposed
through processes of economic globalization and its supporters, nationally and internationally. Thanks to the Project for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ProDESC) in
Mexico City and your ongoing accompaniment of the struggle of the Ejido La Sierrita
and Local 309, including to David Espinoza, Daniel Pacheco, Christopher Benoit and
Dante López for your support during MiningWatch Canada’s visit to La Sierrita in
December 2012. Thanks to the United Steelworkers and Alexandra Eshelman for undertaking the Access to Information Request that turned up the evidence presented in
this report and for seeing this project through to publication.

 Unearthing Canadian Complicity: Excellon Resources, the Canadian
Embassy and the Violation of Land and Labour Rights in Durango, Mexico
That Canadian diplomatic services work to sup- between the Ejido La Sierrita and Excellon Resources
port Canadian business interests internationally is no is just one of many involving Canadian mining firms in
secret. In fact it is assumed to be part of normal consular Mexico and throughout the region.4
efforts. It is also generally assumed that such efforts are
The results of our analysis in this report reinforce
guided and restricted by the principles and standards of our concern that Canadian missions abroad are promotbehaviour that a country has agreed to accept and pro- ing and protecting the interests of Canadian mining
mote internationally, whether on corruption, militari- companies to the detriment of the individual and colzation, environmental protection, labour, or human and lective rights of affected communities. In this case, the
indigenous rights. There is strong
evidence, however, from the behaviour of Canadian government
representatives in Mexico that
such assumptions are not valid
when a Canadian mining operation is involved.
Documents obtained from
the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD) under an access
to information request directly
implicate the Canadian Embassy
in Mexico in Toronto-based ExView of La Platosa mine. Jen Moore photo.
cellon Resources’ efforts to avoid
addressing violations of its agreement with the agricul- Canadian state’s lack of accountability mechanisms for
tural community (Ejido) on whose land it operates the abuses occurring is also glaring. But even more troubling
La Platosa mine in the state of Durango. This included is the Embassy’s failure to demand even basic human
Embassy tolerance of, and even support for, violent state rights protections for the affected community when the
repression against a peaceful protest at the Ejido La Si- Embassy knew that state repression would be used to the
errita during the summer of 2012.
advantage of a Toronto-based company in the Mexican
Understanding the behaviour of the Canadian context where state armed forces are implicated in outEmbassy in Mexico is an important indicator of how rageous levels of violence, including forced disappearCanadian missions are operating abroad, given that ances,5 torture,6 and murder.7
Mexico is the principal destination for Canadian mining
investment outside of Canada1 and that Canadian firms nas.org/files/El_mineral_o_la_vida_0.pdf.
make up some 70% of the foreign mining corporations 4 Grupo de Trabajo sobre Minería y Derechos Humanos en
operating in Mexico.2 The adoption of the North Amer- América Latina, “El impacto de la minería canadiense en América
ican Free Trade Agreement with the US and Canada in Latina y la responsabilidad de Canadá: Informe Presentado a la
Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos,” Nov. 2013.
1994, and with it, constitutional reforms that enabled
5 For example, most recently, Proceso magazine has reported on
collectively held lands to be rented, opened up the Mex- evidence pointing to the involvement of federal police and army in
ican mining sector to foreign investment.3 The conflict the recent murder of 6 and forced disappearance of 43 rural teach1 Natural Resources Canada, “Canadian Mining Assets”, January
7, 2013.
2 United Steelworkers, Common Frontiers & MiningWatch
Canada, “Corruption, Murder and Canadian Mining in Mexico:
The Case of Blackfire Exploration and the Canadian Embassy,”
May 2013.
3 Francisco López Bárcenas and Mayra Montserrat Eslava Galicia, El Mineral o La Vida: La legislación minera en México, (2011)
68-69, online: http://www.lopezbarcenas.org/sites/www.lopezbarce-

ers’ college students from Ayotzinapa, Guerrero in September 2014.
Army officers are also implicated in the assassination of 22 civilians
in Tlatlaya, in the state of Mexico in June 2014.
6 Amnesty International, “Out of Control: Torture and Other
Ill-Treatment in Mexico,” September 2014; http://www.amnesty.
org/en/library/info/AMR41/020/2014/en
7 Official sources in Mexico report over 150,000 homicides and
over 23,000 disappeared since the so-called ‘war on drugs’ was announced in 2006, although actual numbers are bound to be much
higher given that most violent crimes go unreported.

page 1

 Canadian Mining Companies in Mexico: No Stranger to Conflict
Excellon is not unique. Canadian mining companies in Mexico are regularly at the centre of conflict. Here are ten recent examples:

1. Alamos Gold, Esperanza project, Morelos: Owned until recently by Esperanza Resources, Mexico’s federal environmental
authority denied the Esperanza project an environmental licence on June 5, 20131, around which time mine opponents denounced acts of intimidation, including threats and a home being raided.2 The proposed open-pit gold project is hotly contested
by area residents, environmental groups, and state authorities over risks to water, flora and fauna, and for its close proximity to
the Xochicalco archaeological site.3
2. Almaden Minerals, Tuligtic project, Puebla: Agrarian communities in the municipality of Ixtacamaxtitlán have been publicly denouncing and demonstrating against Almaden’s exploration activities in the north of the state of Puebla. They claim that
the company’s project is a violation of their right to self-determination and that the company and state authorities have used
deception and attempts to foster division in order to try to advance the project.4

3. Blackfire Exploration, Payback barite mine, Chiapas: Blackfire Exploration’s short-lived mining activities in the municipality of Chicomuselo, Chiapas, from 2007-2010, led to the murder of Mariano Abarca, who had been outspoken about the environmental and social impacts of the mine, broken promises, and threats from armed mine workers and company representatives.
After Abarca was killed in November 2009, the mine was suspended on environmental grounds and corruption allegations
surfaced, which are the subject of an RCMP investigation.5
4. First Majestic Silver, La Luz silver project, San Luis Potosí: The La Luz silver project is located in an area of San Luis Potosí known as Wirikuta that is a sacred pilgrimage site of the Wixárika Indigenous people.6 In November 2014, the Wixárika
Regional Council reiterated their demand for First Majestic to abandon their project when another Canadian company, IDM
Mining Inc (formerly Revolution Resources), decided to abandon further exploration there.7
5. Fortuna Silver, San José silver mine, Oaxaca: Between January and June 2012, numerous members of the Coordinating
Committee of the United Villages of the Ocotlán Valley, which leads opposition to Vancouver-based Fortuna Silver’s mine in
San José del Progreso, Oaxaca, were shot or assaulted. Bernardo Vásquez and Bernardo Méndez were killed.8

6. Goldcorp, Los Filos gold mine, Guerrero: Evidence of serious health impacts in Carrizalillo, Guerrero have been documented in connection with Goldcorp’s Los Filos mine, whose cyanide heap-leach pad is only hundreds of metres from the centre of
the community. These include a high incidence of eye, skin, respiratory, and gastrointestinal problems, as well as a significant
increase in premature births.9 In April 2014, the Ejido Carrizalillo paralysed the company’s mine for 33 days when the company
refused to negotiate in good faith a new land use agreement that would address, among other things, health and environmental
concerns.10
7. Goldcorp, Peñasquito gold mine, Zacatecas: After a four year wait, in January 2013, the Ejido Cerro Gordo won an agrarian
court decision ordering Goldcorp to return 600 ha of land located within the company’s massive open-pit gold mine for having
been illegally occupied.11 In January 2015, Cerro Gordo and three other Ejidos blocked the main entrance to the mine in protest, including for lack of potable water, environmental damage, broken agreements and that the company has still not returned
Cerro Gordo’s land.12 Within days, the army and federal police were brought in to guard the mine,13 after which community
members were compelled to lift the blockade and enter into dialogue with the company.14
8. MAG Silver, Cinco de Mayo project, Chihuahua: In October 2012, Ismael Solorio Urrutia and his wife Manuela Martha
Solís Contreras, outspoken opponents of MAG Silver’s mine project because of its potential impact on scarce local water supplies, were murdered in Chihuahua.15 Weeks later, Ejido Benito Juárez voted to expel MAG Silver and prohibited any mining
for 100 years on their lands.16

9. New Gold, Cerro de San Pedro gold mine, San Luis Potosí: Since 2007, this open-pit gold mine has operated despite local
opposition and court rulings that revoked its original environmental permit17 and found that land use contracts were fraudulent.18 In May 2014, a heavy rainfall caused leach ponds to overflow into water sources used by the community of La Zapatilla
where 13 people were reported affected,19 while an environmental organization denounced the lack of response from state
authorities to this and repeat complaints.20

10. Timmins Gold Corp. and Goldgroup, Caballo Blanco project, Veracruz: Environmental groups have been campaigning
against this project, in particular because of its close proximity to the Laguna Verde nuclear power station. They argue that regular blasting in the development and operation of the project could jeopardize the integrity of the plant and lead to a radioactive
disaster.21 In mid-2012, federal environmental authorities denied the company a zoning permit for the mine22 and the company
indicated several months later that it would “defer” further consideration of its application for an environmental permit.23
[See footnotes, page 16]

 I. Report Overview
Embassy correspondence and briefing notes obthat Ejido members had installed on private land;
tained from DFATD pertain to the period from July to •  Throughout, there was a deafening silence from the
November 2012,8 during which time the Ejido La SiEmbassy with regard to any concerns pertaining to
errita peacefully demonstrated against Excellon’s silver,
Excellon’s conduct and its refusal to address repeated
lead, and zinc mine after exhausting formal channels
complaints from workers and the community
for their complaints in Canada and while continuing
through dialogue and negotiation.
to call for dialogue
with the company
in Mexico.
Two
complaints brought to
Canadian offices in
2011 and 2012 outline how the company was in violation of its land use
contract and violating landowner and
worker rights. As
a result, during the
period under consideration in this
report, Canadian
officials in Ottawa Ejido La Sierrita. Joshua Berson photo.
and the Embassy in
Our assessment of the documents obtained from
Mexico had considerable information about this conflict.
DFATD
leads us to conclude that, contrary to Canadian
Review of the disclosed material leads to the folGovernment
assertions that it promotes responsible belowing observations:
haviour from Canadian mining companies, the Canadi•  There was a high degree of contact between the an Embassy supported Excellon, despite detailed knowlEmbassy and Excellon management, including edge about serious human rights violations, prioritizing
a clear intention on the Embassy’s part to share the short-term commercial interests of this small Canainformation gathered from community members dian mining company over the wellbeing and rights of
and their legal counsel with the company without workers and the community.
their consent;
This examination of a critical moment in the con•  The tone of all Excellon-Embassy correspondence is flict between the Ejido La Sierrita with Excellon Refriendly and supportive;
sources deepens our analysis of the one-sided behaviour
•  The Embassy actively assisted the company by of the Canadian Embassy in Mexico, which we began
with the examination of the role of the Embassy in the
lobbying key Mexican officials;
case of Blackfire Exploration in Chiapas from 2007•  Despite high rates of violent repression in Mexico 2010.9 It helps us more clearly illustrate how the Canaat the hands of state forces, the Embassy accepted dian Government is a part of the problem with the Cathat state repression be used against the Ejido La nadian overseas mining sector for enabling and defendSierrita’s peaceful protests. One trade commissioner ing company operations while minimizing and disrewent so far as to wish the company well the night garding human rights violations against mining-affected
before police and army moved in on the encampment communities, workers and the environment in order to
privilege the economic interests of Canadian-registered
8 United Steelworkers (USW) made the request for these documents to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Developmining firms.
ment on November 1, 2012. A full year later, USW received 244
pages of redacted emails, briefing notes and memos, company correspondence and press releases, and news clippings.

9 United Steelworkers, Common Frontiers and MiningWatch
Canada, May 2013.

page 3

 II. What We Knew Before We Obtained the Documents from DFATD:
On August 29, 2012, approximately 100 soldiers
and officers of the Mexican Army and federal and state
police agencies used force to break up a peaceful protest
in front of the La Platosa mine, owned and operated by
Toronto-based Excellon Resources in the northern state
of Durango, Mexico.
The Ejido La Sierrita – an agricultural community of some 127 collective landholders – was demanding that Excellon comply with a land rental agreement
signed between the two parties in 2008. Workers, who
were also present at the camp, were calling on Excellon
and the government to respect their right to freedom
of association, part of an organizing effort motivated by
health and safety concerns at the mine and especially

after the death of mine worker Paulin Contreras in early
2010.
The demonstration began on July 8, 2012, after
two official complaints had been filed against the company in Canada to no avail and efforts at talks with the
company had repeatedly broken down. The company
decided to shut down the mine at this time, since workers joined the protest out of solidarity with community
members. Company personnel continued to enter the
mine throughout the protest, in particular taking measures to prevent flooding. The protesters set up a blockade
on private property near the mine site owned by a local
Mexican resident who gave her consent for the protest
to take place on her land.

Murder, Corruption, and Environmental Degradation Don’t Deter the
Canadian Embassy: The Case of Blackfire Exploration
In May 2013, United Steelworkers, Common Frontiers and MiningWatch Canada released a report based
on an access to information request regarding the Canadian Embassy in Mexico and Blackfire Exploration in
Chiapas that operated a mine for two years before it was shut down. [1] This study found that:

R5 Ļ 5 '  --35 (  &  5 &  %ŀ, 5to start up its mine by putting pressure on the state of Chiapas when there
was not clear community consent for the mine and the company was facing permitting challenges.

R5 Ļ 5 '  --35/(  ,.))%5.)5.,)/ & -")).5 ),5 &  %ŀ,  as protests about which it was aware grew against
the mine.
R5 Ļ 5 '  --35." (5#!(),  5.",  .-5.)5&)  &5  .#0#-.-5even after receiving direct testimony from local leader
Mariano Abarca who travelled to the Embassy to warn that the company had broken promises, that its
mine was doing environmental damage, and that there were armed workers intimidating him and others
opposed to the mine.

Within a couple of weeks, Mariano Abarca was arrested off the street while he was making preparations for
a forum against mining in his community. The Embassy knew that Abarca was arrested on the basis of spurious
allegations made by the company against him. Despite this, despite Abarca’s testimony about armed workers and
despite 1,400 letters sent to the Embassy expressing dire concern for Abarca’s life, the Embassy focused on ensuring the continuity of the company’s operation.
Six weeks later, Abarca was murdered, the mine was shut down on environmental grounds and it came to
light that the company had been making direct payments into the personal bank account of the local mayor in
order to help keep down protests, which are now subject of an RCMP investigation.
R5  0 (5." (65." 5 '  --35 )(.#(/  5    ( #(!5 )'* (35#(. , -.-8 The Embassy distanced itself – not so
much from the company – but rather from the investigation into the murder, refusing to meet with affected
community groups.
Some two months later, the Embassy finally sent a fact-finding delegation to the community and reported back to the highest echelons of the Canadian government about testimonies of unfulfilled promises, lack of
community support, environmental damage and corrupt practices. Even then, it continued to advise the company
about how Blackfire could sue the state of Chiapas under the terms of NAFTA for having closed the mine.
Source: United Steelworkers, MiningWatch Canada and Common Frontiers, “Corruption, Murder and Canadian Mining in Mexico:
The Case of Blackfire Exploration and the Canadian Embassy,” May 2013; http://www.miningwatch.ca/news/report-reveals-how-canadian-diplomacy-supported-deadly-blackfire-mining-project

page 4

 At the time, the Mexico City-based Project for
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ProDESC)
questioned what influence a well-connected, Ottawa-based lobbyist that Excellon had just hired might
have had in bringing about state repression against the
community protest. ProDESC is a non-governmental
organization that has accompanied the Ejido since 2007
and the workers affiliated with Local 309 of the National Miners Union since 2010.
One week before state forces moved in on the community’s protest, the Canadian lobbyist registry showed
that Will Stewart of Ensight Canada had registered
to lobby on behalf of Excellon’s Executive Vice Presi-

dent, Brendan Cahill. According to the registry, Stewart
sought “government support for Excellon Resources’ operations in Mexico.” Presumably, Mr. Stewart’s previous
post as chief of staff for Minister of Foreign Affairs John
Baird made him an advantageous choice.
However, the documents obtained from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
(DFATD) under the Access to Information Act indicate
that – while a well-timed phone call from Mr. Stewart
to Mexican authorities may still have been useful to Excellon – well before August 23, the company had crucial
backing from Canadian Ambassador Sara Hradecky and
her staff at the Embassy in Mexico.

III. What the DFATD Documents Reveal:
July 10-12, 2012: Anything you say can and
will be shared with the company

July 28-29, 2012: The Embassy at Excellon’s
disposal

A couple of days into the protest at the La PlatoThe Embassy also played a key role in forging
sa mine, representatives from the Ejido La Sierrita and relationships between Excellon and state government
ProDESC sought a meeting with the Canadian Embas- officials in Durango, in a similar fashion to what DFAsy in Mexico City in order to share their concerns re- TD documents have previously revealed about how the
garding Excellon’s operations, including the company’s Canadian Embassy applied diplomatic pressure at the
unwillingness to enter into dialogue, and about how the state level to support Blackfire Exploration’s operations
Embassy could play a role in resolving the conflict.
The Embassy agreed to meet on Thursday, July 12.
Canadian Ambassador Sara Hradecky does
not appear to have regarded the meeting as an important or useful opportunity for the Embassy to
better understand the issues or to the validity of
the allegations against Excellon. Rather, what concerned Ambassador Hradecky was how the Embassy could glean information from this meeting
for the company:
“I agree that the Embassy needs to receive
these folks, to listen and not comment, just as
we would if someone came to present a petition
to us. I am happy if Shauna receives them, but I
would think a [trade] rep – to listen, possibly to
gather intel helpful to the company – would also
be appropriate. If these folks had come to protest
outside the embassy, TD [Trade Department] and
FSDP [Foreign Service Development Program]
would normally receive together, incl so that 2
people receive them vs someone alone. Dexter, if
u choose to exempt yourself, do you have someone
else who can step in with a view to gathering useful info, and providing a whole-of-Embassy meetMeeting of Ejido La Sierrita members, December 2012. Jen
ing?” wrote Hradecky on July 10, 2012.10
Moore photo.

10 Access to information request A201202266, page 000041

page 5

 Excellon Resources in the Ejido La Sierrita, Durango: Unfulfilled Commitments to
Landowners and Labour Rights Violations
A 45-minute drive outside of the city of Gómez Palacio, the Ejido La Sierrita is in the middle of the
Chihuahua Desert. Its namesake is the short stretch of mountains spanning several dozen kilometres across
their land, part of the Sierra Madre mountain range. When Toronto-based Excellon Resources arrived in 2004,
the Ejido saw an opportunity to attract members who had migrated away in search of work. The company took
advantage of this eagerness by using deceit and the threat of expropriation to force the Ejido to sign a land use
contract for 27 hectares, which was decidedly lop-sided in the company’s favour. The company established La
Platosa silver mine on this land.
In 2008, with the help of the Mexico City-based Project for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ProDESC), and after significant struggle, the Ejido reached an improved land use agreement for 1,100 hectares with
the Canadian silver and base metals producer whose only operating mine, La Platosa, is across the federal highway from the community. Some of the mine’s surface operations are located on lands belonging to the community
and much of the silver that is extracted by the mine is located below these community lands.
In 2010, the Ejido also undertook its own land use plan to guide it in developing other productive projects
to best serve the community, making sustainable use of available resources on their lands.
The agreement with Excellon included a payment of around $500,000 USD per year for Ejido members, as
well as preferential access to contracts for food services and transportation, a water treatment plant to treat water
discharged from the mine (to make it safe for irrigating their desert land for agricultural uses), a payment to a
community development fund, and 600,000 shares in the company.
Unfortunately, while the Ejido received regular annual payments under the agreement, the social and environmental clauses in the contract went unfulfilled. During the presentation of a complaint filed under the OECD
Guidelines for Multinational Corporations with government offices in Ottawa and Mexico City, the Ejido highlighted the company’s failure to build a water treatment plant to ensure Ejido members can use water being removed from the mine for agriculture, and the company’s failure to provide the Ejido with food services contracts
at the mine and to ensure preferential hiring of Ejido members. Furthermore, the community complained that
the company had explored on lands not included in the contract, an express ground for rescission of the contract,
leaving significant environmental damage.
Local residents who went to work in the mine have also complained about working conditions, particularly
after Paulin Contreras was killed on the job in 2010. Workers then faced intimidation when trying to form an
independent union local to address their concerns. In 2012, some fifty workers whom the company identified as
union supporters lost their jobs. More recently, in 2014, Jorge Antonio Valentín Carrillo and Evaristo Soto Nava
were killed in another mine accident in which three others were injured.
Source: MiningWatch Canada, “We rent our land, not our dignity”. (April 29, 2013), online: http://www.miningwatch.ca/article/werent-our-land-not-our-dignity, and Proceso, “Accidente en mina de Durango deja dos muertos y tres heridos”. ( January 11, 2014), online: http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=362123

in Chiapas from 2007 to 2010.11
Early the morning of Saturday, July 28, Ambassador Sara Hradecky sent an email to someone who
appears to be the Governor of Durango, although the
precise name is redacted. Writing in Spanish, she indicated: “Company directors from Excellon Resources
have been in touch with us with regard to the current
situation. They told us that the company is facing serious
financial losses and that it is reconsidering the viability
of its operations at the La Platosa mine.” She stated that
a representative of the company “will travel from Canada
to Durango on Tuesday July 31 and that he is very inter-

ested in meeting with you to talk about this very important matter. Given the extent of Canadian investment
in your state, we believe that it would be appropriate for
this meeting to take place.” She provided Excellon’s contact information in Toronto and concluded expressing
her “thanks for the support of your government and for
the excellent relationship between such fraternal countries as Mexico and Canada.”12
A few hours later, in an email titled “Re: request
for meeting with Governor,” Excellon VP Brendan Cahill reported to Trade Commissioner Alexander Cerat
about a meeting that Cahill had had with the Mexican

11 United Steelworkers, Common Frontiers and MiningWatch
Canada, May. 2013.

12 Access to information request A201202266, page 000038-39,
translation our own.

page 6

 Ministry of the Interior the night before. Cahill stated
that the company threatened to “declare force majeure”
at the mine if the state did not intervene to end the
blockade and said, “the feds recognized that they needed
to act, and that the state [of Durango] was not capable of resolving the situation.” As a result, he continued,
according to his account of the meeting, the Mexican
government official concluded, “the blockade must be
removed; it will be removed by force; or it will be removed by negotiation.” Cahill noted that it is “strange
that he put force before negotiation,” extrapolating that
“it may be the ultimatum that will be delivered to the
blockaders – the authorities will remove the blockade
unless you remove the blockade and negotiate.”13 Cahill
stated that the company had decided to hold off declar-

The trade commissioner expressed no apparent
concern about the federal government’s offer to threaten
or to use armed force against the community’s peaceful protest, concluding: “The Embassy remains at your
disposition should Excellon want further institutional
linkages.”16

August 6-14, 2012: Mexican state accepts
legitimacy of community protest; Excellon
desperately seeks support

A week later, Excellon’s VP Brendan Cahill was
distraught that the Mexican authorities had not cracked
down on the community protest. He sent a letter in
Spanish to Mexican President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, Durango
Governor
Jorge
Herrera Caldera,
Minister of Government Alejandro
Poiré Romero, and
Secretary of Economy Bruno Ferrari
García de Alba,
threatening to shut
down operations if
a clear action plan
was not worked
out.17 The same letter was copied to
the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird,
Canadian Ambassador Sara Hradecky, and Mexican Ambassador to
Canada Francisco
J. Barrio-Terrazas.
Sign in La Sierrita: “Water Not Fit for Human Consumption”. Prometeo Lucero, Red TDT photo.
The company indicated
that
it
would
terminate
service
contracts, lay off an
ing force majeure, pending the outcome of a meeting
estimated
290
employees,
close
the
plant,
and maintain
that the federal government had scheduled for the fol18
lowing Monday, July 30 “at the local army base (feder- the mine, likely flooding it in order to minimize costs.
The company’s high level appeal precipitated a
al).” The meeting would include “Federal ministries of
question
from the Ministry of International Trade the
the Interior, Economy and Labour; State ministries of
the Interior, Economy and Labour; Local and federal next day, passed along by Deputy Director Lorraine
police; the army.”14 He believed that a meeting with the Flannery: “Has there been any contact between DFAIT
state governor might be unnecessary and could “confuse
the issue.”15
13 Access to information request A201202266, page 000031
14 Access to information request A201202266, page 000031
15 Access to information request A201202266, page 000031

16 Access to information request A201202266, page 000031
17 Access to information request A201202266, page 000002-04,
000025-27
18 Access to information request A201202266, page 000002-04,
000025-27

page 7

 Voluntary Standards in Canada and Mexico Prove Inadequate
From 2011-2012, landowners and workers in dispute with Excellon Resources filed complaints in Canada and Mexico, desiring mediated dialogue with the company:

1. On April 8, 2011, Excellon workers from Section 309 of the National Mining Union submitted a complaint to Canada’s
Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor for the Extractive Industries. The Counsellor undertook a site visit to Durango
in July 2011 and found that the complaint was “a good faith, bona fide request” from “directly affected groups, who surfaced
areas of substantive concern, with a view to resolving them in a constructive, mediated dialogue.”1

The CSR Counsellor’s Final Report stated: “that they did not feel adequately trained, that the process of investigation after
an accident does not help in avoiding future problems. Workers expressed their view that they do not feel safe. Several times
we heard of significant problems with statutory pay increases, overtime pay and so on. Workers expressed concerns that those
who were participating in the union drive were suffering retaliation from mine management.”2
Nonetheless, the process ended in October 2011 after Excellon Resources refused to come to the table. The company’s
withdrawal closed the complaint process because Canada’s CSR Counsellor lacked any tools to secure company agreement
to dialogue,3 and lacks a mandate to undertake an independent investigation to determine if rights are being violated, or to
otherwise arrive at a resolution of the issues.4

2. On May 29, 2012, communal landowners from the Ejido La Sierrita and workers from Local 309 of the National Miners Union filed another complaint against Excellon Resources, this time under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational
Corporations with offices in Ottawa and Mexico City.5 They requested that Canada take the lead on the complaint given
concerns that they would not get fair treatment were the complaint referred to Mexico.6
Landowners and workers alleged severe labour rights violations and failure to comply with the land use contract with
the Ejido La Sierrita, including that the company had explored on lands not included in the contract, leaving significant
environmental damage. The complaint also alleged the company’s failure to build a water treatment plant to ensure Ejido
members can use water being removed from the mine for agriculture, or to provide the Ejido with food services contracts at
the mine or preferential hiring of Ejido members. It also echoed labour rights violations submitted to the CSR Counsellor.7

Despite the explicit request for Canada to take the lead, Canada deferred the request to Mexico.8 The entire process in Mexico was beset with procedural flaws, including that the Mexican National Contact Point (NCP) justified its decision not to
proceed to the next stage of the process by referring to the company’s refusal to engage with the workers and landowners,
rationale that would allow any company to bring a halt to a complaint process in the initial stages (just as the Canadian CSR
Counsellor process ended). Other notable irregularities include the unduly high threshold for the acceptance of evidence,
particularly given the conciliatory nature of the NCP, as well as the NCP’s contention that many of the issues raised were
public order issues and unsuitable for mediation. This argument ignores the fact that the complaint accused Excellon of
specific human rights violations. The Mexican NCP closed the complaint without resolution on November 28, 2012.9
[1] Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor, “Closing report: Request for review file #2011-01-MEX”
(October 2011), online: http://www.international.gc.ca/csr_counsellor-conseiller_rse/publications/2011-01-MEX_closing_rep-rap_final.aspx?lang=eng
[2] Ibid.
[3] In November 2014, while not announcing any changes to the mandate of the CSR Counsellor, the Canadian Government announced that
it would try to compel companies to participate in complaint processes in the future through “withdrawing of Government of Canada support
in foreign markets as a result of a company’s non-participation in the dispute resolution mechanisms of the Office of the CSR Counsellor or
Canada’s National Contact Point (NCP) for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.” Source: Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, “Harper Government Announces Enhanced Corporate
Social Responsibility Strategy to Strengthen Canada’s Extractive Sector Abroad”. (November 14, 2014), online: http://www.international.
gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2014/11/14a.aspx?lang=eng
[4] MiningWatch Canada, “Concerns with regard to the mandate and review procedure of the Office of the CSR Counsellor for the Government of Canada,” March 2011; http://www.miningwatch.ca/sites/www.miningwatch.ca/files/MiningWatch_Brief_on_CSR_Counsellor.pdf
[5] Project for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Mexico - MiningWatch Canada - United Steelworkers, “Mexican Workers, Landowners
File Second Complaint Against Canadian Mining Company Excellon Resources,” May 29, 2012; http://www.miningwatch.ca/news/mexican-workers-landowners-file-second-complaint-against-canadian-mining-company-excellon
[6] The Mexican NCP is responsibility of the General Directorate for Foreign Investment in the Ministry of Economy.
[7] Project for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Mexico - MiningWatch Canada - United Steelworkers, May 29, 2012.
[8] Letter From Judith St. George, then Chair of Canada’s National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,
to MiningWatch Canada, June 28, 2012.
[9] Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD (TUAC), assessment of the complaint process following a fact-finding mission to Mexico from February 28-March 1, 2013. Available online: http://www.tuacoecdmneguidelines.org/CaseDescription.asp?id=163

page 8

 [now DFATD] and Excellon, or has Excellon requested blockade being removed, and we’re not even sure that
any assistance from the Government?”19
the Ejido was advised of or in any way in agreement with
Over the next several days, diplomats at the Em- the plan presented to us by the government. We were
bassy in Mexico and bureaucrats in Ottawa developed a expected to negotiate across the blockade, exactly as we
briefing note about the conflict for the Minister of In- said we would not and cannot do. Basically, both federal
ternational Trade Ed Fast.20 The note described the com- and state governments recognized an extortionate blockade
pany’s interest in Mexico and that ProDESC had assist- as a viable negotiating tactic”23 (emphasis our own).
ed mine workers in submitting a labour rights complaint
Cahill concluded his letter asking the Embassy to
to the Office of the CSR Counsellor for Extractive In- request a meeting with the Governor of Durango for Exdustries in April 2011 that ended when the company ecutive Chairman, President and CEO of Excellon Peter
refused to enter into dialogue in September 2011. It also Crossgrove the following week. The Embassy made the
noted that Canada’s National Contact Point (NCP), arrangements and after the meeting with the Governor,
responsible for administering the OECD’s Guidelines Cahill reported back to the Embassy calling the results
for Multinational Enterprises, had received a complaint “muddily promising at the moment” and thanking the
from landowners and workers in May 2012, with sup- Trade Commissioner for the favour.24
port from ProDESC,
MiningWatch Canada, and several Mexican and Canadian
labour organizations,
which was passed off
to the Mexican NCP
office in June 2012.
Finally, in describing
the local community
protest begun in July
2012, the Embassy
clearly accepted the
company’s characterization of the protest
as ‘illegal’21 or ‘unlawful,’22 although these
words are redacted
from some versions of Sunset, Ejido La Sierrita. Joshua Berson photo.
the memo that appear
August 28-30, 2012: Company and Embassy
in the DFATD documents obtained.
When the protest had still not ended by August had prior knowledge about army and police
14, Brendan Cahill determined that the federal and state crackdown on community protest
governments did not agree with the company’s – and,
On the afternoon of Tuesday, August 28, the comby virtue of having largely followed the company’s lead, pany and the Embassy were expectant. Cahill wrote an
the Embassy’s – read of the situation. In an email to email, copying upper company management and the
Embassy Trade Commissioner Wayne Robson, Cahill Embassy trade commissioners, in which he reported: “A
wrote: “Yesterday, we were effectively ambushed by the representative of the federal Ministry of the Interior is
federal and state governments. There was no sign of the meeting with local officials, including the local army and
police chiefs, to plan to complete the new access opening
19 Access to information request A201202266, page 000002-04,
tomorrow morning. Both state and federal governments
000266
have finally agreed (only took seven weeks) that they
20 Access to information request A201202266, page 000002-04,
have authority to make arrests in the face of this ongoing
000239-262
illegal trespass. The outstanding state, and pending fed21 Access to information request A201202266, page 000002-04,
000255, 257
22 Access to information request A201202266, page 000002-04,
000135, 137, 241, 243

23 Access to information request A201202266, page 000097
24 Access to information request A201202266, page 000051

 eral, criminal charges will be justification for opening the
second access [to the mine] tomorrow. Fingers crossed,
we’ll see what happens – at least the authorities finally
seem to be fully seized of the situation.”25
It appears that Senior Trade Commissioner Wayne
Robson sent a copy of Cahill’s message to various Canadian bureaucrats at DFATD and the Canadian Am-

effort to dissuade the Mexican authorities’ from using
violence against community members.
Trade Commissioner Robson did receive a request from the company asking that the Embassy forward the company’s press release to the Mexican Ambassador to Canada “with the advice that tomorrow the
decision will either be taken to fully reopen the mine
or fully shut it down on care
and maintenance.”28 Excellon’s
press release went on at great
length using derogatory language aiming to undermine
the role of ProDESC and the
National Mining Union in the
community struggle. Meanwhile, Robson’s only comment
about the use of state force
against the Ejido’s protest was
that “the company accessed
the mine today with the assistance of the Federal, State
and Municipal police as well
as the military.”29 He indicated that Ambassador Hradecky
would likely do the favour for
the company to send along the
Aftermath of the October 24, 2012 attack on the Ejido La Sierrita protest camp. El Siglo
Excellon release to her Mexide Torreon photo.
can counterpart in Ottawa.
bassador in Mexico. He then replied to Cahill: “We are
hopeful that there will be some movement on the pro- September 17-27, 2012: Continued backing
cess tomorrow as per your email. Thanks very much.”26
for Excellon
On Wednesday August 29, an estimated 100 solShort weeks after the military and police supportdiers and officers of the Mexican Army and federal and
ed Excellon in violently breaking through the peaceful
state police agencies used force to break through the
protest, after which the company decided to restart norpeaceful protest. The action came as a surprise to the
mal mine operations, the Embassy was busy reinforcing
community and its supporters. ProDESC issued a press
the Canadian government and industry’s strategic relarelease aghast at the apparently abrupt reversal in the
tionship with the state of Durango.
Mexican authorities’ position. They stated: “The MexiAmbassador Hradecky invited Cahill to attend “a
can government had maintained a role as mediator in
working luncheon” in Durango on September 24, 2012,
the conflict at the La Platosa mine. The government, at
which was billed as a “roundtable … to discuss ‘Canadiboth the state and federal levels, has assured the meman investment in Durango’ to have a frank exchange with
bers of Ejido La Sierrita that it supports their right to
participants and gather views on the current investment
protest and is outraged by Excellon’s failure to negotiate
regime, security, and social context.”30 This was part of
in good faith with the community.”27 There is no evithe Ambassador’s “first official visit”31 to Durango from
dence that either the company or the Embassy made any
September 23-25 that had the objective to “reinforce
Canada’s profile in key states, not least because demo25 Access to information request A201202266, page 000019
cratic and structural changes have given Governors in26 Access to information request A201202266, page 000172-177
27 Project for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Mexico
(PRODESC), “Excellon Hires Ottawa Lobbyist; Mexican Government Sends in Army,” August 31, 2012; http://www.miningwatch.ca/news/excellon-hires-ottawa-lobbyist-mexican-government-sends-army

page 10

28
29
30
31

Access to information request A201202266, page 000089-96
Access to information request A201202266, page 000089-96
Access to information request A201202266, page 000029
Access to information request A201202266, page 000056

 creasing power and autonomy.”32 During her visit to Du- Embassy could help out.
rango, the Ambassador discussed the conflict between
The response of the Embassy to this request is
the Ejido La Sierrita and Excellon. The Embassy re- unknown. But when the company notified the Embassy
ported that the Governor would “continue working with on September 25 that the Ejido’s protest had been reinfederal counterparts to ensure a predictable investment forced and that the company was “arranging a meeting
environment.”33 Furthermore, “Ambassador Hradecky with the Mexican Ambassador to Canada” and considerthanked him for having met twice personally with senior ing its legal options, the Trade Commissioner respondmanagement from the company.”34
ed: “Please let us know if we can facilitate in any way.”41
Excellon attended the September 24 roundtaOne month later, on October 24, the Embassy reble, along with other members of the Canadian busi- ceived an urgent message from ProDESC that a group
ness community, including: Canadian Pacific Railways, of mine union members from another part of Mexico,
First Majestic Silver,
Great Panther Silver,
PanAmerican Silver,
Primero Mining, and
Esperanza Resources.35 The Embassy
signed an agreement
for bilateral cooperation during the
trip36 and concluded
that “the visit served
to strengthen the
Embassy’s dialogue
with the state of
Durango”37 and “was
important for continued access to, and Meeting of Ejido La Sierrita members, December 2012. Jen Moore photo.
support from, the
Durango Government at the highest levels.”38
accompanied by Excellon’s Chief Operating Officer
Excellon’s Brendan Cahill readily accepted the Robert Moore, broke into the community’s encampinvitation to participate in the roundtable in Durango, ment outside of the La Platosa mine and used mine
but the company’s problems were not yet over. Five days equipment to destroy everything that they had there.
before the Ambassador travelled to Durango, Cahill ProDESC’s press release notes how municipal police
wrote to say that they had regained full access to the had threatened the community members of a possible
mine as of September 7, but that the protest continued. eviction earlier that week and raised concern that the
Furthermore, they were “facing delays in regaining our federal and state government authorities had not takexplosives permit from the army. We have definitely not en adequate measures to protect the lives and physical
received any sort of straight answer, but they have said integrity of the workers and members of the Ejido who
the presence of protesters causes a security risk regard- were acting in defence of their rights.42 The Embassy’s
ing the explosives.”39 The company had already called discussion in response to this event is largely redacted.43
the state Governor and was “seeking a meeting with the
Three weeks later, Trade Commissioner Wayne
40
President or his deputy,” but nonetheless hoped the Robson wrote an email, copied to the Ambassador and
others, that appears to be a congratulatory note in rec32 Access to information request A201202266, page 000056
ognition of Brendan Cahill being promoted to President
33 Access to information request A201202266, page 000057
of Excellon, in which Robson stated: “We look forward
34 Access to information request A201202266, page 000057
to continuing our work with you in the upcoming year.”
35 Access to information request A201202266, page 000059
36
37
38
39
40

Access to information request A201202266, page 000062
Access to information request A201202266, page 000061
Access to information request A201202266, page 000061
Access to information request A201202266, page 000028
Access to information request A201202266, page 000028

41 Access to information request A201202266, page 000046
42 Access to information request A201202266, page 000188-190
43 Access to information request A201202266, page 000191, 194199

page 11

 Excellon becomes persona non grata in La Sierrita
Excellon’s refusal to meet its contractual obligations or to engage in good faith dialogue with the Ejido La
Sierrita, along with violent evictions of the community’s protest camp in August and October 2012, ended the
company’s welcome in this community.
The destruction of the Ejido’s protest camp early in the morning on October 24, 2012, was a particularly
decisive moment. During a December 2012 visit to La Sierrita, MiningWatch Canada heard directly from community members about this event.
Only about six people were in the camp at the time, while others maintained a second camp that had been
set up further down the road. According to the six present, it was early morning and they were waking up, starting to get breakfast ready when the company’s then-Chief Operating Officer, Rob Moore, led a convoy of white
pick-up trucks bearing company logos and several busloads of people from mines in the states of Zacatecas and
Chihuahua toward their camp.
One elderly woman who was among the six recalled how women employed by the company arrived ahead
of the convoy, warning them that they should get out of there, that they could get hurt. Her husband added that
the company COO cut the wire fence that they had erected around the camp. After the fence was cut, a scooptram
drove out of the mine site and rolled into their camp.
“They knocked it all over, all of the food was knocked over,” said one woman. “The scooptram picked up the
canvas wall of the kitchen and held it up like a flag,” said one man. Then everything was burned. It all took about
twenty or thirty minutes. “We expected that we might have been evicted by other people, soldiers or the federal
police perhaps, but not by them. We didn’t expect that from them, but they did it by their own hand,” expressed
the elderly woman in dismay.
Another community member stated: “This was an eviction and a robbery. Rich people don’t lack for anything, but this is an offence to us.”
“We rent the land, not our dignity,” remarked another.
Several years ago, Excellon figured into La Sierrita’s local development plan. Now, it is an unwelcome presence that the Ejido is working to free itself from. “Before the company arrived, we managed to get along,” stated
David Espinoza, President of the Ejido. And they will again. He and other members have concluded that they
must focus on their own projects to create work and gain independence from the mine.
In September 2012, the Ejido undertook to rescind the contract with the company and get back their land.
The lawsuit for annulment of the land use contract is currently in its final stages. The community members hope
that the court’s ruling respects their human rights.
Source: MiningWatch Canada, “We rent our land, not our dignity,” April 29, 2013; http://www.miningwatch.ca/article/we-rent-ourland-not-our-dignity

IV. Conclusion: Canadian State Complicity in Corporate Impunity
In an April 2014 letter to the United Steelworkers, the Canadian Embassy in Mexico reiterated the
Government of Canada’s oft-stated position with regard to Canadian mining companies operating abroad
in connection with Excellon Resources:
“The Government of Canada encourages
and expects all Canadian companies working around the world to respect all applicable laws and international standards, to operate transparently and in consultation with
host governments and local communities,
and to conduct their activities in a socially and environmentally responsible manner
[…] our Government continues to promote

page 12

[…] responsible business practises.”

To the contrary, on the basis of the disclosed 2012
communications between Excellon and the Canadian Embassy, there is no indication that Embassy staff
were concerned that there might be substance to alleged
rights violations against Excellon or that Excellon’s conduct might not comply with Canada’s notion of what
constitutes ‘responsible business practices’. In fact, there
is no suggestion that the Embassy considered Excellon’s
conduct as anything but acceptable, despite formal complaints having been filed with Canada’s Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Counsellor44
44 MiningWatch Canada and the United Steelworkers, “CSR
Counsellor Fails in First Attempt to Resolve Dispute as Excellon

 and the Canadian National Contact Point (NCP) for on private property with the consent of the landowner.
the administration of the Guidelines for Multinational Nevertheless, this did not prevent the Mexican authoriEnterprises under the Organization for Economic Co- ties from breaking through the peaceful protest in favour
operation and Development (OECD).45
of Excellon’s interests when faced with concerted politAbsent from the 244 pages obtained from DFA- ical pressure.
TD under this access to information request is any eviContrary to providing any evidence that the Cadence that the Embassy urged the company to dialogue nadian government is abiding – at a minimum – by its
with the Ejido, to address outstanding social and envi- obligations under the seven international human rights
ronmental issues, to demonstrate respect for the free- conventions that it has signed, along with other internadom of association of company workers, to respect their tional human rights norms, these documents reveal Caright to protest peacefully, to avoid the use of armed re- nadian complicity in the efforts of a Canadian mining
pression of a peaceful protest, or even to avoid dispro- firm to avoid responsibility for its social, environmenportionate use of force when it
tal and labour obligations to the
knew that the army and police
Ejido La Sierrita and Local 309
were planning to crack down on
of the National Miners’ Union in
the community encampment.
Durango. They demonstrate the
Rather, these documents proEmbassy’s willingness to facilvide a troubling illustration of
itate relationships, especially at
what the Canadian Government
the state level, that may have enmight mean by “economic diploabled the community’s property
macy” when it declared this to
to be sacked and their safety to
be a central facet of its Global
be put at risk in order that the
Markets Action Plan released
mine could continue operating,
in November 2013,46 indicating
without ensuring that the comthat the whole of the Canadian
pany comply with contractual
diplomatic corps would be at the
agreements that it had with the
service of private interests, and
landowners and workers.
how this approach could further
Combined with the inefenable corporate abuses.
fectiveness of the Canadian CSR
Excellon’s stance that the
Counsellor48 and the Canadipeaceful protest was “illegal” or
an NCP49 to provide a helpful
“unlawful”, a characterization
response to earlier complaints
that seems to have been readily Meeting of Ejido La Sierrita members, Decem- brought to Canada by the Ejiaccepted by the Canadian Em- ber 2012. Jen Moore photo.
do and union members, and the
bassy, was at no point backed up by legal action taken by subsequent, anticipated failure of the Mexican NCP to
the Mexican authorities. It can be assumed that the fact do the same, these documents provide clear and trouthat the “outstanding state, and pending federal, crimi- bling insights into how Canada is complicit in helping
nal charges”47 were never actually brought is due to the to uphold the state of impunity in which mining compalegitimate nature of the protest which was carried out nies are operating in Mexico, which leaves communities
and workers with few, if any, effective channels to have
their grievances meaningfully addressed. They further ilResources Abandons Dialogue,” October 27, 2011; http://www.
miningwatch.ca/news/csr-counsellor-fails-first-attempt-resolve-dis- lustrate how the Embassy’s support of Canadian mining
pute-excellon-resources-abandons-dialogue
companies serves to enable the sort of arrogant and abu45 ProDESC, MiningWatch Canada and the United Steelworkers, “Mexican Workers, Landowners File Second Complaint
Against Canadian Mining Company Excellon Resources,” May 29,
2012; http://www.miningwatch.ca/news/mexican-workers-landowners-file-second-complaint-against-canadian-mining-company-excellon
46 Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, “Harper Government Launches New International Trade
Plan,” November 27, 2013; http://www.international.gc.ca/media/
comm/news-communiques/2013/11/27a.aspx?lang=eng
47 Access to information request A201202266, page 000019

48 MiningWatch Canada and United Steelworkers of
Canada, October 27, 2011.
49 Trade Union Cases: OECD Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises, “Excellon Resources Inc. V
Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores Mineros, Metalúrgicos,
Siderúrgicos y Similares de la República Mexicana
(SNTMMSSRM), 30 of the SNTMMSSRM”, http://
www.tuacoecdmneguidelines.org/CaseDescription.
asp?id=163, Accessed July 19, 2014.
page 13

 sive behaviour they display, such as in this case.
These findings are unlikely to come as a surprise
to a great many in Latin America who already view Canadian authorities as highly biased actors. As one fairly
moderate Minister of Environment from the region who
preferred to remain anonymous said in the context of a
discussion about mining and Canadian policy: “I don’t
know if Canada has been quite so discredited in its history […] I don’t think they really care.”50 A Sub-secretary of Energy and Mines from the region has also stated: “As far as I can tell, the Canadian Ambassador here is
a representative for Canadian mining companies.”51
Further, when family members of slain community activist, Mariano Abarca, met with the Canadian
Embassy in Mexico to share findings similar to this report in regard to the Embassy’s relationship with Blackfire Exploration’s operations in Chiapas between 20072010, they received a similar response to the above-cited
letter to the United Steelworkers. The Embassy provided
no explanation for its unconscionable defence of Blackfire, whose operations were shuttered on environmental
grounds shortly after Mariano Abarca was assassinated
and around the same time that evidence emerged that
the company had been bribing the local mayor.52 Rather, Embassy officials repeated: “We encourage Canadian mining companies to respect local laws and human
rights and to implement Corporate Social Responsibility programs.”53 When asked if, at a minimum, the
Embassy could speak with Mexican authorities in order
to ensure protection for the lives of Mexicans who are
threatened or criminalized for speaking out against the
operations and abuses of Canadian mining companies,
officials responded that this would be tantamount to interfering in Mexican sovereignty. They did not consider,
however, that the then-Ambassador was interfering in
Mexican sovereignty when, on behalf of Blackfire, he intervened with the Governor of Chiapas to support the
company’s operations.
These findings may, however, come as a surprise
to Canadians to learn that the trouble with the Canadian mining industry in a country like Mexico – as
mentioned, the top destination for Canada’s overseas in50 Dr. Anthony Bebbington, “Comments to the House
of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Development,” February 29, 2012; http://
www.miningwatch.ca/sites/www.miningwatch.ca/files/
Bebbington%20testimony,%20SCFAAE,%2029Feb12.pdf
51 Ibid.
52 Jennifer Moore, “Canadian Embassy Snubs Family of
Slain Mexican Activist,” September 4, 2013; http://www.
cipamericas.org/archives/10557
53 Ibid.
page 14

vestment in the globalized mining sector – is not just a
problem with corporate behaviour or with the response
of local authorities. Rather, it is also a problem with the
Canadian state, which has been harnessed to promote
and protect a narrow set of commercial interests in the
extractive sector, which has profound and lasting negative social, environmental, and economic impacts on
affected communities who have little recourse for these
harms and who often risk their lives in the fight to have
their rights respected.
Canadians should not only demand that the Canadian government do its part to address the problems
with corporate impunity for these abuses, but also demand that its economic agenda be reoriented to prevent
such harm and instead promote and protect Indigenous
and human rights, workers and the environment with
which industrial mining is consistently at odds.

V. Recommendations
To the Canadian government:
•  Replace the CSR Strategy for the International
Extractive Sector with actual legislation to regulate
the overseas operations of Canadian-registered
mining companies in strict accord with international
environmental, labour, and human rights standards,
including full respect for the rights of Indigenous
peoples to self-determination and free, prior, and
informed consent.
•  Repeal the so-called ‘economic diplomacy’ policy
under the Global Markets Action Plan,54 which
purports to channel 100% of Canada’s diplomatic
corps into promoting private interests in key markets,
which means even more support for Canadian mining
companies as a principal area of Canadian investment
around the world.
•  Insofar as DFATD, Canadian Embassies and other
government agencies provide advice and assistance to
Canadian companies operating abroad, create robust
eligibility criteria for all government supports. These
requirements must ensure respect for individual and
collective human rights, including the Indigenous
right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, as well
as to not obstruct the democratic and participatory
decision making processes of non-Indigenous
communities, especially when communities have
decided against mining activities in their territory.
•  Adopt federal legislation that allows non-Canadians
who are affected by the overseas operations of extractive
54 DFATD, Global Markets Action Plan, November
2013; http://www.international.gc.ca/global-marketsmarches-mondiaux/index.aspx?lang=eng

 companies to bring civil lawsuits before Canadian
courts. The statute should clarify that Canadian
courts provide an appropriate forum to hear claims
against extractive companies registered in Canada. To
this end, we urge parliament to debate and pass Bill
C-323, or comparable legislation, as soon as possible.
•  Create an independent ombudsman mechanism
to receive complaints and verify the compliance of
Canadian extractive companies with legally binding
standards.
•  For the last 20 years, Canada has pursued and
negotiated trade and investment agreements that
promote and protect the interests of investors at the
expense of human rights, labour rights, environmental
standards, and democratic decision-making and
public accountability. The conduct of Canadian
mining companies such as Excellon Resources Inc. is
one of the results of that agenda. Canada must revise
its current trade and investment agreements and must
pursue a different trade agenda that is based on respect
for Indigenous, human, labour, and environmental
rights, which must include refusing to sign and or
ratify any further trade and investment agreement that
include investor-state dispute settlement procedures.

To Excellon Resources’ Shareholders and
Investors
It is urgent that Excellon Resources’ shareholders and investors take immediate action to address and
reverse management’s track record of thwarting contracts and labour law, as well as human rights and ethical
norms, causing considerable harm to the Ejido La Sierrita, National Mining Union Local 309 and ProDESC,
including:
a) The use of deception and pressure tactics to obtain its
first land-use contract,
b) The bad faith with which it has acted in regard to
social and environmental terms in its second land-use
contract,
c) Precarious working conditions at the mine, evidenced
by three men killed on the job since 2010, and another
three injured,
d) Intimidation and reprisals that workers have faced in
their attempts to organize,
e) Its constant refusal to enter into mediated dialogue
with the landowners and workers, despite their
having submitted formal complaints and peacefully
protested for months,
f ) A smear campaign undertaken against ProDESC for
its accompaniment of the peaceful and law-abiding
struggle of the Ejido La Sierrita and National Mining

Union Local 309 in defence of their individual and
collective rights,
g) Lobbying Canadian and Mexican officials, including
repeated threats to shut down the mine, leading to
the use of armed force against a peaceful protest in
August 2012, and
h) The reported involvement of company officials in the
violent eviction of October 2012.

This behaviour has led the Ejido La Sierrita to
take legal action to rescind its contract with the company on whose land the La Platosa mine has been operating. In this context, Excellon’s shareholders and investors
should insist that management:
R5   %()1&  ! 5 ." .5 #.5 " -5  )(., 0 (  5 #.-5  !,  ' (.5
with the Ejido La Sierrita and refrain from interfering
in judicial proceedings that the Ejido La Sierrita has
undertaken in order to annul its contract with the
company.
R5  (5    ), 5 1#."5 
 2#  (5 & 15  ( 5 ." 5 . ,'-5 ) 5 #.-5
agreement with the Ejido, return the community’s
land to the Ejido, as well as provide full compensation
to the community for all damages that the mine
operation has caused to their lands.
R5  (5    ), 5 1#."5 
 2#  (5 & 15  ( 5 ." 5  )'* (3]-5
obligations to not interfere in the full enjoyment of
labour rights of its employees, cease all efforts to block
or obstruct workers’ freedom of association, including
all involvement with protection contracts (contracts
that protect an employer against independent union
organizing in Mexico), and respect the labour rights
of members of Local 309 of the National Mining
Union.
R5    - 5 ' %#(!5 */ &# 5 ),5 *,#0 . 5 -. . ' (.-5  ! #(-.5
ProDESC, which has the effect of putting the
lives and integrity of the persons involved in this
organization at risk, as well as against any human
rights, environmental or social organization that
might accompany communities and workers in areas
where it operates in the future.
R5    - 5 #(0 -.#(!5 #(5 &)  35  Ŀ),.-5 .)5 *, --/, 5 -. . 5
officials in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else.
This practice fosters corruption and impunity, and
encourages the use of repressive armed force against
communities and workers, putting their lives and
physical integrity at risk.
R5   -*  .5 ( 5*,).  .5#( #0# / &5 ( 5 )&&  .#0 5"/' (5
rights through the adoption and implementation of
policies to guarantee respect for community and worker
rights in any future operations, including fulfilling all
clauses of any contracts or other agreements that are
negotiated with them.
page 15

 Notes for Text Box “Canadian Mining Companies in Mexico: No Stranger to Conflict”
[1] Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), Oficio No. SGPA/DGIRA/DG 03865, México, Distrito
Federal. ( June 5, 2013)

[2] El Sol de Cuernavaca, “Aterrorizan a quienes se oponen a la mina”. ( June 7, 2013), online: http://www.oem.com.mx/elsoldecuernavaca/notas/n3010075.htm
[3] Proceso, “Advierte Graco que recurrirá a la Corte para impedir operación de minera.” (February 25, 2013), online: http://www.
proceso.com.mx/?p=334633
[4] Afectados y Autoridades Agrarias del Municipaio de Ixtacamaxtitlán and Consejo Tiyal Tlali, Press Release. ( June 26, 2014).

[5] United Steelworkers, MiningWatch Canada and Common Frontiers, “Corruption, Murder and Canadian Mining in Mexico:
The Case of Blackfire Exploration and the Canadian Embassy”. (May 2013), online: http://www.miningwatch.ca/news/report-reveals-how-canadian-diplomacy-supported-deadly-blackfire-mining-project

[6] Wirikuta Defence Front, “Urgent Second Letter to the President of Mexico, the Peoples and Governments of the World.” (February 14, 2013), online: http://frenteendefensadewirikuta.org/wirikuta-en-bk/?p=1240

[7] Letter from the Wixárika Regional Council for the Defence of Wirikuta to First Majestic Silver Corp. (November 27, 2014); Press
Release, “Wikárika Leaders to First Majestic Silver Corp: Follow IDM Mining Ltd Example, Abandon Mining Project in Sacred
Lands”. (November 28, 2014), online: http://huicholesfilm.com/en/?p=447
[8] National Assembly of People Affected by Environmental Conflicts, “New Aggression in San José del Progreso, Oaxaca”. ( June 16,
2012), online: http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=11773&l=1
[9] Agrarian Authorities of Carrizalillo, “La Nueva Fiebre del Oro: Daños a la Salud Vinculados a la Extracción de Minerals a Cielo
Abierto”. ( July 10, 2012)
[10] Ejido Carrizalillo, “Ejido Announces Agreement with Goldcorp, Ending 33-Day Strike”. (May 3, 2014), online: http://www.
miningwatch.ca/news/ejido-carrizallillo-announces-agreement-goldcorp-ending-33-day-strike

[11] Georgina Howard, “Lejos de El Dorado”. Report Indigo, (May 30, 2013), online: http://www.reporteindigo.com/reporte/mexico/
lejos-de-el-dorado
[12] Alfredo Valadez Rodríguez, “Bloquean comuneral el acceso a la mina Peñasquito”. La Jornada, ( January 12, 2015), online: http://
www.jornada.unam.mx/2015/01/12/estados/030n2est
[13] Manuel Chacón, “Militares intervienen en conflicto minero en Zacatecas”. ( January 11, 2015), online: http://www.milenio.com/
estados/conflicto_minero_Zacatecas-militares_conflicto_minero_zacatecas-minera_Penasquito_0_443955761.html

[14] El Sol de Zacatecas, “Ejidatarios levantan bloqueo en accesos a mina de Zacatecas”. ( January 17, 2015), online: http://www.oem.
com.mx/elsoldezacatecas/notas/n3674820.htm
[15] Dawn Paley, “Punching Holes in the Desert”. The Dominion (April 23, 2013), online: http://dominion.mediacoop.ca/story/
punching-holes- desert/16740

[16] Solange Garrido, “Minera canadiense Mag Silver expulsada de región de norte de México”. (November 21, 2012), online: http://
www.biobiochile.cl/2012/11/21/minera-canadiense-mag-silver-expulsada-de-region-de-norte-de-mexico.shtml
[17] MiningWatch Canada and Frente Amplio Opositor, “Mexico to Shut Down New Gold’s Cerro de San Pedro Mine – Canadian
Parliamentarians and Mexican Congress Members Urge Company to Comply with Law”. (November 12, 2009), online: http://www.
miningwatch.ca/mexico-shut- down-new-gold-s-cerro-de-san-pedro-mine-canadian-parliamentarians-and-mexican-congress-m
[18] Mennonite Central Committee, “Cerro San Pedro, Mexico”. (Accessed February 14, 2013), online: http://mccottawa.ca/miningjustice/casestudies/cerrodesanpedro

[19] Vicente Juárez, “Trece intoxicados por contaminación causada por Minera San Xavier en SLP”. La Jornada (May 29, 2014), online: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2014/05/29/estados/033n1est

[20] Plano Informativo, “Demanda Pro San Luis Ecológico acciones contra la MSX”. (May 29, 2014), online: http://planoinformativo.
com/nota/id/327445/noticia/demanda-pro-san-luis-ecologico-acciones-contra-la-msx.html#.U4qYrHaFcdV
[21] Andrés Timoteo Morales, “Piden organizaciones negar permiso a mina de oro en Veracruz”. La Jornada, (September 12, 2011),
online: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2011/09/12/175833527-piden-organizaciones-negar-permiso-a-mina-de-oro-en-veracruz
[22] Proceso, “Rechaza Semarnat proyecto de minera canadiense, en Veracruz”. (May 21, 2012), online: http://www.proceso.com.mx
/?p=308298

[23] Goldgroup, “Goldgroup Defers the Evaluation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (MIA) for its Caballo Blanco Mining
Project in the State of Veracruz, Mexico”. (September 17, 2012), online: http://www.goldgroupmining.com/s/newsreleases.asp?ReportID=548225

page 16