If none of these countries are willing to authorize the foreign national to enter, the Minister can select any country that will authorize entry within a reasonable time and remove the foreign national to that country.495 This approach to removal has been criticized because it does not take into consideration a stateless person’s circumstances and that they are being removed to a state where they lack status and do not have access to political, civil, social and economic rights.496 Furthermore, when travel documents are not available, the CBSA may attempt to obtain travel documents on behalf of the foreign national in order to enforce removal. If no travel documents can be obtained, in exceptional circumstances the CBSA may issue a “Canada Immigration Single Journey Document”. This document does not guarantee entry to the destination country.497 In cases where another country refuses to allow the foreign national to enter, after they left or were removed from Canada because a removal order was made against them, an immigration officer must allow the foreign national to re-enter Canada.498 Although this latter provision provides a stateless person with an opportunity to return, it does not address the potential risk of detention and other rights violations that a stateless person who is removed from Canada may experience once at the frontier of the “receiving country”. Another scenario that is possible when a stateless person does not leave Canada voluntarily when issued a removal order is that they may be detained until removal takes place.499 Detention may occur on the basis that an individual has not been able to establish their identity, is inadmissible and a danger to the public, and/or there are reasonable grounds to believe that they will not appear for an admissibility hearing, for removal, or for an examination by an officer.500 While such detention is subject to regular detention reviews, Andrew Brouwer explains that the basis of detention reviews at the Immigration Division can result in detention that is prolonged, since officials may fear the stateless person will abscond and because there is no maximum detention length for immigration detention in Canada.501 For stateless persons who are subject to an unenforceable removal order and there is no country in which they have a lawful status, they may be at risk of indefinite detention. III. Assessment In view of the discussion above, there are some significant gaps that demonstrate the Canadian legal framework is not compatible with Article 31 of the 1954 Convention. Of particular concern is that the Canadian legal framework fails to specifically reference or address the unique circumstances and concerns of stateless persons during removal. In addition, the fact that stateless persons may be subject to removal on grounds other than national security and public order appears to be contrary to Article 31. Additionally, since persons subject to removal on these grounds may not have a full hearing before the Immigration Division, but only an interview Ibid., at s. 241. Statelessness in the Canadian Context, supra note 4 at 54. 497 ENF 10 Removals, supra note 449 at 51-53. 498 IRPR, supra note 21 at s. 39(a). One might assume the individual would be considered then “lawfully in Canada”, but it is not clear what status they would have or for how long they are authorized to stay. 499 Statelessness in the Canadian Context, supra note 4 at 53, pursuant to IRPA, supra note 20 at s. 55. 500 IRPA, ibid. 501 Statelessness in the Canadian Context, supra note 4 at 55-56. See IRPA, supra note 20 at ss. 57 & 58. 495 496 102