Collection is Unsubstantiated StatsCan’s data is self-reported and untestable, rendering the data unreliable. IRB data collection has improved since 2012 and appears thorough. CIC did not respond to questions pertaining to stateless refugees within Canada's government sponsored resettlement program and the humanitarian and compassionate grounds stream, or on success rates of applicants. CIC did not provide a response as to whether this data is recorded or what the ‘stateless’ category comprises. CIC would not clarify the data it collects within its ‘global assessment of factors’. CBSA appears to have a streamlined collection process however, the Agency does not collect data pertinent to the stateless experience including country of last habitual residence, and the legal status and detention of stateless persons in the countries to which they have been removed. Reporting is Misleading StatsCan’s grouping of data into categories that align with their Standard List of Countries is misleading. StatsCan’s manipulation of data for the sake of reporting contributes to the unreliability of the National Household Survey data. IRB’s practice of not reporting on reasons for positive decisions contributes to gaps in the contextualisation and analysis of cases of statelessness. CIC’s reporting practices within the Open Data tables are in need of clarification, specifically how the unique circumstances of statelessness are accounted for, for example, the inability to travel, and whether reported stateless persons are also refugees. Qualification of figures is essential, for example, as Statistics Canada reported in its National Household Survey in 2011 that there were 1,690 stateless persons in Canada and CIC reported in 2015 that there have been 316,882 stateless persons in Canada since 1981. CBSA’s practice of using detention days as an indicator in reporting other sets of detention data is misleading and raises further questions about the real number of stateless persons in detention and their circumstances. There is also no explanation of why detention days is used to report detention data rather than the number of stateless individuals in detention, raising concerns about the value of the data. UNHCR Recommendations The IRB has implemented UNHCR recommendation #1 and does collect and record information on country of former habitual residence, age, gender, but not whether statelessness was a factor in decisions. It is not clear whether the IRB has implemented recommendation #2, reporting on whether statelessness was a factor in humanitarian and compassionate cases, and data on former habitual residence, age, and gender in these cases. It appears the data collection practices of the CBSA are improving, however, CBSA has not implemented UNHCR recommendations #3 and #4, which refer to the collection of age and length of detention, and country of former habitual residence and legal status in country of destination, respectively. In addition to highlighting data collection and reporting practices of stateless persons in Canada, this study has demonstrated the importance of the need for accurate and contextualised data. This study raises further questions with respect to the experiences of stateless persons in this country. This study is a point of departure from which future researchers can explore, for example, the detention of stateless persons, how decisions are made with respect to their claims for asylum, how stateless persons define themselves, the cooperation between government agencies, and how Canada understands, both legally and discursively, the nature of statelessness. Such research would enhance the understanding of statelessness in Canada and contribute to its eradication both in Canada and elsewhere, and most importantly, enhance the lives of stateless persons. 19