More regarding proof of intent:
Obviously I do not know the specifics as to how CIC will approach the intent requirement. It is a specified requirement, so at the least CIC will have to assess the application and determine whether the intent requirement is met.
As suggested by many, albeit not necessarily in a stand-alone affidavit format, the applicant will undoubtedly have to express or affirm that his or her intent, if granted citizenship, is to continue to reside in Canada. As I further noted before, it is possible that an applicant may be required to affirm this again, perhaps at the test or oath, or both, much like currently applicants must affirm that they have no prohibitions (such as pending criminal charges).
That in itself is "proof" in the evidentiary sense. But it might not be sufficient proof if there are facts or circumstances tending to indicate that is not the applicant's actual intent.
I offered some examples before:
-- an applicant who is living and working in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., while the application is pending, clearly does not have the intent, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada: a person cannot logically intend to continue to reside anywhere other than where the person is residing at the time, so a person living in Texas obviously does not have, cannot have, an intent to continue to reside in Canada no matter how vehemently he swears that is his intent
-- an applicant whose immediate family is living in India, who owns a home in India, and whose primary source of income is from a business or employment primarily based in India, but who is living in Canada while the application is pending, can assert it is his intent to continue to reside in Canada, but the extent of primary residential ties in India at the least suggests this individual's circumstances might be very closely scrutinized . . . and depending on the actual facts, a comparison of ties in India versus ties in Canada, the applicant's credibility generally, whether there is a credible explanation for some of these circumstances -- say the wife is staying in India to care for a terminally ill parent, and she is also the primary care taker for the couple's children, so she is staying in India and living in the family's home there until she and the rest of the family can rejoin her husband in Canada.
What conclusions or inferences CIC will draw in the latter circumstance will depend on many factors.
But basically it comes down to a fairly simple analysis for the vast majority of applicants; probably no issue, no doubts so long as::
-- the applicant properly makes the affirmation of intent, plus
-- there is minimal evidence (facts or circumstances) indicating the applicant is preserving or pursuing residential ties or employment abroad
In contrast, applicants who maintain strong ties abroad, or appear to be pursuing employment or employment opportunities abroad, sure, CIC is likely to take a closer look at such applicants, impose RQ (or comparable request for documentation) if CIC has concerns, and what CIC determines will vary depending on what facts and circumstances and evidence there is, and on what inferences from the evidence CIC reasonably makes.
It warrants emphasizing, again, that the history of Canadian law has many, many examples of cases in which "intent" is a pivotal element, many in which there were questions about what facts tend to disprove or otherwise contradict an individual's stated intent. This is really not new territory.
More regarding proof of intent, part II: tax returns
The import of the additional requirement to be present in Canada at least 183 days in each of four calendar years within the previous six years should not be underestimated. This requirement is obviously intended to work in conjunction with the requirement to comply with Canadian tax laws.
And this is highly relevant to the intent requirement because (my sense) one of the reasons for these requirements is to compel PRs (those planning on becoming citizens) to file resident tax returns in Canada (persons present in Canada for 183 or more days in a calendar year are presumed to be a resident for Canadian tax purposes), which in turn require at least the disclosure of (and perhaps some payment of tax on) worldwide income. Make no mistake, CIC is likely to be looking for applicants with continuing income from business or employment abroad, precisely because these are evidentiary factors which might indicate the applicant's intent is not to continue residing in Canada.
Lack of trust for CIC decision-making:
I recognize that many distrust CIC and anticipate a lack of good faith in how CIC evaluates the facts and circumstances. I acknowledge that in the last several years, since Jason Kenney was Minister of CIC and continuing with Chris Alexander, CIC has clearly trended toward a stricter, sometimes more harsh approach, some might think draconian (the 2012 OB 407 process was indeed draconian and almost brought citizenship application processing to a standstill).
These things are hard to judge in the abstract without hard evidence and reliable statistics. The Federal Court cases represent only a tiny sliver of the cases which are denied by CJs, let alone the number given RQ and dragged through multiple years of processing. Anecdotal reports in forums like this too are but a tiny sliver of the actual cases, and rife with inherent unreliability.
So it is not easy to pass judgment on how fair CIC and CJs have been, currently are, and will be in the future.
That said, we know that last year two hundred thousand or more PRs became new citizens. We know that in most previous years (2012 an anomaly), the number of applicants denied tended to be a small percentage compared to the number approved. For example, in 2007 through 2009, the number approved was around a half million, those denied maybe 25k . . . but yes, it was around 2009 that CIC (I think Jason Kenney was the Minister by then, if not it was then Diane Finley) began imposing more difficult knowledge tests and increasing the number of applicants given RQ, began a more strict approach to shortfall applicants and increased processing timelines dramatically, and stopped publishing a lot of the statistics which helped those of us in the public to better understand the process and the extent to which hurdles or pitfalls might obstruct the path to citizenship.
Nonetheless, overall, my opinion anyway, is that for the vast majority of applicants, CIC handles the application professionally, competently, and fairly. I recognize that particularly for those who applied in 2011 and 2012, policies and practices at CIC swept a hugely disproportionate number of qualified applicants into the mire of residency case processing, and that that example alone has generated a great deal of distrust toward CIC. Much of that appears to have been, so to say, fixed, and is less a problem today. Nonetheless, yes, many of those still being dragged into the mire of residency case processing are qualified, legitimate applicants who deserve better.
There will always be some failure in a bureaucracy, particularly one as large and cumbersome and charged with making some difficult calls, as is CIC. Perfection is not on the horizon. But overall most applicants who meet the qualifications, who are settled in Canada and planning their near future life to continue to be in Canada, should encounter no serious problems in obtaining citizenship . . . either now or after the revised provisions come into force.
How well a government does, though, is measured by the more difficult cases. I admit, that remains to be seen . . . and especially so if after the coming election the Conservatives continue to form the government.
All I can suggest is that prospective applicants do their best to be in a strong position, to not be among those with a more difficult case, when they apply, at least to the extent that is practical. Everyone should be keeping good records. Everyone should at least nominally prepare for the possibility of being issued RQ.
But, sure, as I noted before, life is complicated, and life for immigrants tends to often be more complicated than non-immigrants -- after all, we have real ties abroad, many of which we want to preserve, including business contacts in addition to family and close friends. So, sure, for some it may not be so cut-and-dry, so clear. For these applicants, it is even more important to get one's records in order, to conscientiously consider the best time to make the application, make it when the case is strong and can be well documented.
But for those who are just trying to stay the minimum in Canada before taking that gravvy job in the U.S. or going back home with a passport which will facilitate career opportunities abroad, CIC will be watching for you and doing its best to spoil your plans.