their arrival to Canada, but also during their stay as a result of not having regularized their status or because they are deemed a flight risk, a ‘danger to Canada’ or a ‘security risk’. Furthermore, stateless persons are at greater risk of indefinite detention because they are often not ‘removal ready’ due to the fact that they may not be able to be ‘returned’ or removed to another country.56 38. In practice, it is extremely difficult for persons to advocate for themselves in detention reviews. Persons in detention have little support, resources and opportunity to access legal representation and do not know what they need to present at a detention review to convince a decision maker of their release. Further, the courts have provided little relief for those in indefinite detention. The Federal Court of Canada recently held that the detention review scheme did not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and also that there was no need to impose a maximum time limit to indefinite detention despite evidence that stateless persons are at risk of prolonged and arbitrary detention.57 While the Federal Court prefers to rely on the discretion of the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to ensure that they are considering alternatives to detention, and that all the relevant factors associated with the detained stateless person are being considered, in reality, government submissions are taken as fact, disclosure is not provided to detainees and there is a reverse onus on the detainee to justify release (and to suggest and secure alternatives to detention) rather than on the government to justify continued detention.58 The indefinite detention of stateless persons is often occurring in provincial criminal facilities despite the fact that many immigration detainees have no criminal record or charges pending. Recommendations 39. In light of the fact that statelessness was not focused on under the First and Second Cycle of review and that Canada has not fully accepted and implemented all recommendations that relate to the rights of stateless persons, the co-submitting organisations urge reviewing states to make the following recommendations to Canada: I. Fully promote, respect, protect and fulfil its obligations towards stateless persons under international human rights law. II. Accede to and fully implement the 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons, including the provision of health care, education, social assistance, and work permits to stateless persons. III. Implement a definition of ‘stateless person’ in the Citizenship Act, and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Furthermore, ensure that the definition of ‘stateless person’ is fully consistent with the definition provided in the 1954 Convention and that no stateless persons are excluded from this definition on extraneous criteria. IV. Implement a Statelessness Determination Procedure in accordance with the 1954 Convention, and ensure that the procedure is fair, effective and accessible to all persons in Canada regardless of their legal status. The procedure should comply with international standards of due process and follow the procedural safeguards outlined in UNHCR’s Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons. 56 Section 48(1). Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. Brown v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 710. 58 Brown v Canada, Ibid; See also Brendan Kennedy, “Immigration detainees can be jailed indefinitely, federal judge rules” (July 25, 2017) (online at Toronto Star: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/07/25/jailing-immigration-detainees-indefinitely-does-notviolate-charter-federal-judge-rules.html). 57 9