masks their unique circumstances that may necessitate more affirmative treatment under Canadian law. That said, where practical obstacles to exercising rights in Canada are apparent, they are noted in the report. The report also observes that there is little reliable research on stateless persons in Canada, their demographic profile, their status and their legal histories. Substantial quantitative and qualitative research is required to know more of their experiences and whether the Canadian legal framework is compatible with the 1954 Convention and Canada’s international human rights obligations. In writing and researching this report, it is apparent that such information is essential. For example, knowing who is stateless in Canada and their legal status facilitates a greater understanding of the scope of a “statelessness problem” in Canada, as well as assists in determining how many stateless persons are within the scope of the 1954 Convention. On the latter issue, several articles of the 1954 Convention apply to stateless persons depending on whether they are “lawfully staying”, “lawfully in”, habitually resident, or physically present in Canada. However, Canada has not clearly articulated in its legal framework which permits and statuses under Canadian law constitute “lawfully staying” or “lawfully in” for the purposes of the 1954 Convention. This creates some uncertainty on the extent to which some Canadian legislation is, or is not, compatible with the 1954 Convention. Furthermore, there is little information on how many foreign nationals in Canada are identified as stateless, and how such determinations are made. Therefore, in order to create effective policy solutions on statelessness in Canada, reliable statistics on the number of stateless persons in Canada and the implementation of an effective statelessness determination procedure is required. 6