accuracy of the Government of Canada’s claim that its legal framework provides sufficient protection for stateless persons; and therefore, is compatible with the 1954 Convention. The report compares the Canadian legal framework of the federal government and the provincial governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec with the key provisions of the 1954 Convention. The Canadian legal framework reviewed for this report includes constitutional law, legislation, regulations, policies, jurisprudence and common law principles. Only Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec’s legal framework is assessed due to time constraints and the fact that 86% of the population of Canada resides in these four provinces.9 Future research may wish to focus on the legal framework in other Canadian provinces, since there can be slight variances among the provinces that impact the rights of stateless persons. Where gaps are identified between the Canadian legal framework and the standard of treatment in the 1954 Convention, these are documented. Furthermore, where gaps are identified the report assesses whether Canada has existing obligations under international human rights law to meet or exceed the standard in the 1954 Convention. Finally, in order to address documented gaps, the report provides many recommendations for future research, information gathering and policy reform. LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT The report does not examine every article of the 1954 Convention. Instead, it focuses on the most significant articles that address the legal and socio-economic rights of stateless persons and for which Canada may have existing international human rights obligations. In addition, some articles of the 1954 Convention are unique to the Convention and are not buttressed by other international human rights standards. In such cases, the Canadian legal framework is still assessed in order to provide recommendations that may alleviate the precarious situation of stateless persons in Canada. The report also takes a formalistic approach to examining how the Canadian legal framework considers stateless persons. In so doing, it does not consider the potentially infinite scenarios that stateless persons experience in attempting to exercise their rights in Canada. This means that in some cases the assessment of the Canadian legal framework appears compatible and neutral on its face in its treatment of stateless persons, there may be disproportionate and adverse impacts on stateless persons due to their often-precarious and marginalized existence.10 For example, the legal framework does not provide stateless persons with a special status under Canadian law and assimilates stateless persons within the definition of foreign nationals. While this essentially ensures that stateless persons receive treatment at least as favourable as “aliens generally”, it Statistics Canada, “Population by year, by province and territory”, (26 September 2014), available at: http://tinyurl.com/acm88up. 10 This report does not describe the stories of stateless persons in Canada and their daily circumstances. However, their precarious circumstances and marginalization has been well documented elsewhere. For a few Canadian examples see Stateless in the Canadian Context, supra note 4. For an international perspective on the consequences of statelessness see UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Special Report: Ending Statelessness in 10 years, July 2014, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/statelesscampaign2014/Stateless-Report_eng_final3.pdf. 9 5 5