refugee law and risk-based assessments in addressing statelessness; and, the detention and removal of stateless persons. In relation to these issues, Andrew Brouwer concluded that current federal legal mechanisms are insufficient to protect stateless persons in Canada. THE PURPOSE OF THE REPORT Andrew Brouwer’s report did not examine all of the protection standards for stateless persons under the 1954 Convention. Therefore, this report will provide a further comparative assessment of the most important articles of the 1954 Convention and the Canadian legal framework as it relates to the treatment of stateless persons. In particular, this report will examine both federal and provincial legal frameworks that pertain to the main legal, economic and social rights of stateless persons. By examining the current Canadian legal framework, the purpose of this report is to identify any incompatibility between the articles of the 1954 Convention and the Canadian legal framework. In undertaking this assessment, the report seeks to independently verify whether the Government of Canada’s claim that “Canadian law contains all the necessary safeguards to cover adequately the situation of stateless persons” is well founded. As a result of this review, the report finds that gaps exist between the Canadian legal framework and the protection standards in the 1954 Convention. Incidentally, the report also inadvertently illustrates that Canada’s contention that the 1951 Refugee Convention duplicates the rights in the 1954 Convention, is misguided and overly simplistic.7 Furthermore, as an aside, the Government of Canada’s argument that acceding to the 1954 Convention would be a “pull-factor” for stateless persons and would encourage those to renounce their citizenship in order to remain in Canada, is not supported by evidence from countries that are Party to the 1954 Convention.8 METHODOLOGY This report provides a systematic and independent assessment of the Government of Canada’s rationale for not acceding to the 1954 Convention. This is necessary in order to determine the The drafters of the 1954 Convention recognized that having a separate convention would fill a gap in international law because not all stateless persons meet the definition of “refugee” in the 1951 Refugee Convention. The preamble to the 1954 Convention makes clear that the purpose of the Convention is to protect those stateless persons who are not covered by the 1951 Refugee Convention. In taking the above position, Canada essentially assumes that refugees and stateless persons are the same. However, this position is not consistent with information on its own website concerning “Terms and definitions related to refugee protection”. That information acknowledges that statelessness has a “genuine meaning under international law” and that “statelessness and refugee status are not identical” (See, Citizenship and Immigration, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, “Terms and definitions related to refugee protection” (25 February 2013), available at: http://tinyurl.com/poqw8et). 8 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Statelessness determination procedures, Identifying and protecting stateless persons, August 2014, at 8, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/5412a7be4.html; see also Chris Nash, “Still Stateless, still suffering: It’s time for European leaders to take action” (29 August 2014), available at: http://tinyurl.com/nk88ja6, stating: “In those few European countries with well-established [statelessness determination] procedures (France, Hungary, Italy and Spain) the number of applications has remained manageable and generally consistent year on year.” 7 4