Most responses above adequately clarify issues related to the OP's question.
Beyond that, cheap shots aside, the expression "intent to remain" reflects the current law better than "intent to reside."
links18 said:
The requirement is actually an intent to
continue residing in Canada.
Thus, as PMM paraphrased it, an intent to remain is still a legal requirement.
Some will wince and mutter about semantics. If however this requirement is enforced, and technically the IRCC is mandated to enforce it even though there is a proposal to repeal this particular requirement, the difference is important: an intent to reside in Canada upon being granted citizenship does
NOT satisfy the requirement currently imposed by Section 5(1)(c.1) in the
Citizenship Act, since 5(1)(c.1) explicitly requires a qualified applicant to intend, if granted citizenship, to
continue to reside in Canada. A person can only intend to continue doing that which the person is already doing. Hence, this provision in effect (and if enforced, which it might not be, or at least might not be strictly enforced) requires an applicant to intend to remain in Canada.