a work permit while subject to an unenforceable removal order are only “authorized” to work in Canada, but not necessarily “lawfully staying” or “lawfully in” Canada for the purposes of the 1954 Convention. III. Assessment Since the IRPA subsumes stateless persons within the definition of foreign nationals, stateless persons appear to enjoy treatment at least as favourable as that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances with respect to the right to engage in wage-earning employment. Therefore, on the basis of a formalistic analysis, the Canadian legal framework appears to be compatible with Article 17 of the 1954 Convention. However, stateless persons may be disproportionately and adversely affected by provisions that exclude them from temporary resident status when they are issued a work permit as a person subject to an unenforceable removal order and unable to meet their basic needs. Excluding stateless persons from acquiring temporary residence status, and from being considered “lawfully staying” or “lawfully in” may, as a consequence, deny them access to other protection rights in the 1954 Convention that require “lawfully staying” or “lawfully in” status. Such articles include 15 (right of association), 18 (self-employment), 19 (liberal professions), 21 (housing), 23 (public relief), 24 (labour legislation and social security), 26 (freedom of movement), 28 (travel documents), and 31 (expulsion). Furthermore, without the ability to acquire a secure legal status in Canada, some stateless persons remain in indefinite legal limbo, unable to be removed to any country where they have legal rights, but remain in Canada without an avenue to secure legal status or a secure right to engage in wage-earning employment. Their work permit is conditional on being unable to meet their basic needs and is subject to frequent renewal and processing fees. It is in light of these precarious circumstances that stateless persons subject to an unenforceable removal order should be considered “implicitly lawfully staying” in Canada, or that they be given “sympathetic consideration” to assimilate their rights with those of nationals under Article 17(2). Some may argue that stateless persons who lack “status” are able, like all foreign nationals, to apply for permanent residence through a humanitarian and compassionate grounds application,232 or apply for a TRP in order to obtain “lawfully staying” status. However, it has been observed elsewhere that the discretionary nature of these applications and the fact that statelessness alone is not sufficient for approval, indicates that Canada is not fully cognizant of stateless persons’ unique legal and socio-economic circumstances. In order words, the Canadian legal framework does not recognize that stateless persons may not always be “in the same circumstances” as foreign nationals generally.233 To the extent that stateless persons are unable to obtain a valid work permit even when they are subject to an unenforceable removal order, but are still able to meet their basic needs, it is worth noting General Comment No. 20 from the CESCR. General Comment No. 20 states: 232 233 IRPA, supra note 20 at s. 25(1). For the critiques on this issue, see Statelessness in the Canadian Context, supra note 4. 46