My understanding is that the difference between the 1961 and the 1954 conventions is that the one we haven't ratified imposes positive obligations, so it really means that Canada has to take positive steps to create a pathway to citizenship for stateless persons. Canada needs to actively take steps to identify, to track, to define and to provide a pathway to permanent status in Canada.
Canada is reluctant to do this because it really means there won't be flexibility in the future to talk about the ways in which we might want to create a more flexible or less sticky citizenship. We've seen discussions and policy and revisions in our Citizenship Act that have in the past created concerns among advocates like me about whether or not citizenship should be as permanent as it is. There have been recent discussions about the idea of citizenship, who qualifies for it, who is deserving and how we can strip citizenship away. These potential policy actions that governments may want to take are restricted further by their being a signatory to this convention.
I think that Canada should take this as an opportunity to be a leader. The UNHCR is embarking on this campaign and Canada's been known internationally to lead in the refugee context, and I don't see how it could be any different with regard to statelessness. I think it is a good time and an opportunity to incorporate in our protection regime a way to define and track stateless persons and to identify ways to provide dedicated protection paths for them.
Obviously, the first step to do that would be to become a signatory and ratify the convention, but I think Canada can make a contribution without doing that as well. However, my preference would be to become a signatory.