The Strange Case of “Intention to Reside Outside Québec”

One of the more puzzling quirks of Canadian immigration law is the requirement for certain applicants—especially those applying through federal economic programs like Express Entry —to demonstrate a clear intention to reside outside the province of Québec as a permanent resident.

At first glance, this might sound logical: Québec has its own immigration programs and selection criteria. But here's where it gets odd—once someone becomes a permanent resident of Canada, they are constitutionally entitled to live and work anywhere in the country, including Québec.

So why are applicants being asked to prove an intention they are not bound to respect after landing?

Québec’s Unique Role in Immigration

Québec has a special agreement with the federal government known as the Canada-Québec Accord, which gives the province exclusive control over the selection of economic immigrants who intend to settle there. That means if you want to live in Québec as a skilled worker, you must go through Québec’s own immigration programs.

In contrast, federal programs like Express Entry are designed for applicants intending to live in the rest of Canada. So when someone submits an application through a federal stream but is living, working, or studying in Québec, IRCC often issues a procedural fairness letter questioning whether the applicant truly intends to settle outside Québec.

This leads to a strange legal and ethical dilemma: applicants must prove their “intention” to live elsewhere, even though they are under no obligation to respect that intention once they become permanent residents.

A Legal Fiction—But With Real Consequences

The requirement to show intent isn’t backed by any mechanism to enforce it. Immigration officers cannot restrict someone from moving to Québec after receiving permanent residency. However, failing to demonstrate this intent convincingly can result in a refusal before permanent residency is granted.

Applicants are often forced to go to great lengths—moving to Ontario, signing leases, submitting letters from employers—to prove they have no ties to Québec, even if their reasons for being in Québec are temporary or beyond their control (such as completing studies or awaiting a job transfer).

This disconnect creates what legal professionals refer to as a “legal fiction.” It's a requirement based on form over substance: everyone knows it cannot be enforced, yet it still dictates outcomes.

Should It Matter?

In principle, Canadian immigration policy is meant to serve national interests. Once someone is selected based on merit, skills, or family ties, does it really matter where they live? Forcing individuals to move or conceal their true intentions arguably creates unnecessary stress, encourages dishonesty, and wastes valuable resources—both for the applicant and for IRCC.

Moreover, the practice arguably opens the door to arbitrary or inconsistent decisions, where officers may subjectively interpret someone’s intent based on weak or circumstantial evidence.

A Call for Reform or Clarity

Rather than perpetuating this ambiguous standard, policymakers might consider modernizing the approach. This could include increasing transparency by publishing clearer guidelines on how officers assess “intention,” to ensure consistency and fairness.

Until then, applicants and their representatives must continue playing this awkward game—crafting narratives about where they plan to live, all the while knowing that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows them to move freely after landing.