With regards to Article 1(2), Canada’s legal framework is nearly compatible, since the IRPA already incorporates similar exclusion provisions from Articles 1E and 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The inadmissibility provisions may also be compatible with the 1954 Convention, but these provisions may need to be adjusted in order to account for the unique circumstances of stateless persons and to provide sufficient procedural safeguards in accordance with international standards. On the latter point, it is noted that in the refugee context, exclusion is to be considered after there is a determination that the person meets the definition of a “refugee” under the 1951 Refugee Convention.34 The current inadmissibility scheme in Canada does not comply with this requirement. a. Canada’s International Human Rights Obligations Canada has commitments under international human rights law to “everyone” in its territory without discrimination, even non-citizens and stateless persons.35 In this regard, the UNHCR “encourages states that are not yet party to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons to treat stateless persons lawfully residing on their territory in accordance with international human rights law; and to consider, as appropriate, facilitating the naturalization of habitually and lawfully residing stateless persons in accordance with national legislation.” 36 One key step to addressing the human rights of stateless persons in States that are not party to the 1954 Convention is to establish statelessness determination procedures. Nationality and statelessness determinations are necessary in a number of legal contexts. This includes removal proceedings, issuing a passport or identity documents, voting rights, military service, and accessing government services, etc. As a result, there is a great value in the establishment of statelessness determination procedures.37 For example, an assessment of statelessness may be required when an individual seeks the application of the 1961 Convention to which Canada is a State Party.38 In addition, without a rigorous application of the definition and the determination of stateless persons, there is a risk that there becomes generalized discrimination against stateless persons. By grouping stateless persons with all foreign nationals, there is a formalistic and non-substantive understanding of the discrimination and hardship stateless persons experience in Canada. Therefore, there needs to be proper identification of stateless persons in order to avoid discrimination in the enjoyment of rights under the 1954 Convention, but also rights under other international human rights treaties to which Canada is a party. Finally, one could argue that by not recognizing stateless persons and leaving them in indefinite legal limbo, violates a stateless person’s right to an effective remedy, their right to liberty and security of the person, their right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), The Exclusion Clauses: Guidelines on their Application, 2 December 1996, at paras. 8-9, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b31d9f.html. 35 Handbook on Stateless Persons, supra note 12 at para. 141. 36 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Conclusion on Identification, Prevention and Reduction of Statelessness and Protection of Stateless Persons, Conclusion No. 106 (LVII) - 2006 (6 October 2006), at 106(u), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/453497302.html [EXCOM Conclusion No. 106] 37 Handbook on Stateless Persons, supra note 12 at paras. 9, 57 & 122. 38 Ibid., at para. 57. 34 12