CONCLUSION This report has assessed Canada’s claims that there is no need for it to accede to the 1954 Convention because Canadian law contains all the necessary safeguards to cover adequately the situation of stateless persons. Upon reviewing the Canadian legal framework of the federal government, as well as the legal framework of Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, this report demonstrated that the Canadian legal framework does not appear to safeguard all the rights of stateless persons in the 1954 Convention. The report further illustrates that Canada, as a State Party to other international human rights instruments, has an obligation to address identified legal gaps in order to protect the rights of stateless persons. The most significant gaps in the Canadian legal framework are with respect to the definition of statelessness (Article 1); housing (Article 21); free public education (Article 22); healthcare and social assistance (Article 23); social security (Article 24); identity papers (Article 27); travel documents (Article 28); expulsion (Article 31); and naturalization (Article 32). Although some of these articles are enshrined in other international human rights treaties to which Canada is a State Party, some are unique to the 1954 Convention. In any event, this report provided recommendations to ensure that gaps be addressed in order to ensure the Canadian legal framework protects the rights of stateless persons in Canada. Key recommendations of the report include conducting future research projects that gather quantitative and qualitative information on stateless persons in Canada, their demographic profile and their legal histories. Of particular interest in future research are the practical obstacles that stateless persons experience in accessing their rights under the Canadian legal framework discussed in this report. Such research is necessary in order to truly determine the extent to which seemingly neutral legal provisions may create disproportionate and adverse impacts on stateless persons. In addition, other recommendations include establishing a statelessness determination procedure and establishing a “stateless person status” similar to that of “protected person status” under Canadian law. This status would enable stateless persons to work, study, access healthcare and social assistance, acquire travel documents, reduce the risk of indefinite detention and removal, and apply for permanent residence and eventually citizenship. 115 115