Former Lancastrian

One has to question why Quebec offered to sponsor you without having a job which a lot of other PNP programmes do. Satisfying a particular province that you would be suitable to live and work there without a job offer IMHO causes problems unless your are sponsored under a setting up a business or Entrepreneur. Many immigrants choose certain provinces to apply under as the province they really want to live in they don't qualify under that PNP programme so they are misrepresenting themselves and the province they apply to. As places are limited and capped they are stopping some from applying who might actually want to live and work in that province.
Ive dealt with several cases where this has occurred and IMHO its misrepresentation.
If you want to live and work in BC then apply under their PNP programme and if you don't qualify for the BC programme don't apply under say the Manitoba PNP to circumvent this. Yes there will be cases like yours but why should you be treated differently than a new spouse as per this

If you have been granted conditional permanent residence, you must live together with your sponsor in a legitimate relationship for two years from the day you receive conditional permanent residence. The condition ends after the two-year period.

So say you married a Canadian you would be subject to this and after 12 months you decided to separate you would have your PR status revoked. Why should PNP applicants be treated differently?

jamesmc

on a very similar point , about a year after I received PR after being nominated by MB I received a phonecall from MB iirc pnp section checking that I still lived in MB, another PR brit I knew had the same phonecall.
\I do agree that to be nominated by a province you should have to stay a certain length of time other wise it screws it up for those that follow.
jimmy.

catpea33

Quebec don't require a job offer for the stream I applied through. In any case, at the time I applied, I *did* have a job. I lived in Quebec for three years before I was forced to move for financial reasons. My intention is to go back but there needs to be a job for me to go back to before I make that move. My point is that making a blanket statement or giving a defined period that a person must stay for won't cover every eventuality. Sure, you'll catch people who misrepresented themselves but you'll also catch a few poor unfortunates like me who had no choice but to move.