The Lack of a Formal Statelessness Determination Procedure 20. Canada does not have a specific procedure and no specific legal framework for the determination of statelessness. The identification of stateless persons is presently governed by Canada’s immigration agency, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), as well as the independent Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). IRCC and IRB testing mechanisms for statelessness in either of these cases has not been published. However, as of June 2017 the IRCC has published a set of guidelines for establishing proof of statelessness including what documentation and correspondence serves as evidence.22 21. The identification of stateless persons is of utmost importance in guaranteeing the rights of stateless persons living in the country. A formal statelessness determination procedure would offer the most effective means to protect the human rights of stateless persons,23 including rights such as liberty and security of the person. Such a procedure would also allow the state to gain a better understanding of the extent of statelessness and to better monitor the status and treatment of stateless persons in Canada.24 The co-submitting organisations therefore recommend that Canada implement a dedicated, formal statelessness determination procedure that meets the standards set out in relevant UNHCR guidance.25 22. In order to determine statelessness, a statelessness determination procedure should be simple, accessible to everyone within the Canadian territory, fair and efficient.26 The procedure should be formalised in law and observe due process guarantees.27 In compliance with these standards, the Canadian statelessness determination procedure should provide for a shared burden of proof, the standard of proof should be reduced and applicants should be offered an individual interview. 28 Moreover, information and counselling about the procedure should be widely disseminated in order to facilitate access to the procedure.29 Additional procedural and evidentiary safeguards for child applicants should be put in place, including ‘priority processing of their claims, provision of appropriately trained legal representatives, interviewers and interpreters as well as the assumption of a greater share of the burden of proof by the State’.30 Government officials who may come in contact with stateless persons through their regular work (for example, social services or immigration control) should be trained to identify potential applicants and should refer them to the determination procedure.31 Finally, authorities involved in the identification of stateless persons should be provided with training on statelessness and the rights of stateless persons. 23. The lack of a stateless determination procedure has resulted in the absence of a ‘stateless person status’ in Canada. As noted in a recent report, ‘in some instances where the Canadian legal framework is prima facie compatible with articles of the 1954 Convention, the legal framework may still produce disproportionate adverse effects on stateless persons’.32 23 UNHCR, Good Practices Paper – Action 6: Establishing Statelessness Determination Procedures to Protect Stateless Persons, 11 July 2016, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/57836cff4.html, p. 2. 24 UNHCR, Global Action Plan to End Statelessness, Action 6, 4 November 2014, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/545b47d64.html; UNHCR, Mapping Statelessness in Austria, January 2017, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/58b6e5b14.html, para 125. 25 See also Erauw, 2015. 26 UNHCR, Statelessness Handbook (note 12), paras 63, 68 and 69. 27 Ibid, para 71. 28 Ibid, paras 71, 89-93. 29 Ibid, para 68; UNHCR, Good Practices Paper – Action 6, (note 49), p. 5. 30 UNHCR, Statelessness Handbook (note 12), para 119. 31 UNHCR, Good Practices Paper – Action 6, (note 49), p. 4. 32 Erauw, Gregg. “Compatibility of the 1954 convention Relating to the status of stateless persons With Canada’s legal framework and its 5