What seems to have happened here—and I'm only going to give you my impression—is that inside several government departments there has been a lack of knowledge regarding how Parliament works. Do the people who made that decision know that there's such a thing as the Royal Assent Act? Do they know there is such a thing as the Interpretation Act? Do they even know that bills come into force automatically on royal assent if there is not a proclamation or a coming-into-force clause in the bill? Finally, when the official from Finance Canada was interviewed by the Globe and Mail reporter, they seemed to make a distinction between the commencement date and the implementation date. In their view there was a difference. To me, that's like saying your birthday is different from the day you were born. I mean, this is ridiculous. They're euphemisms, and everyone knows that.
Finally, what was the intention of Parliament? If Parliament had wanted this bill to come into force later, it would have said so in the bill. Similarly, if Parliament had wanted to have a specific date that was not the date of royal assent, that too could have been in the bill. In other words, there were two occasions on which that could have been put in the bill by the drafter of the private member's bill in question. I don't even think we should call it a bill anymore. It's not a bill now. It's an act. It's actually part of the statute law.
Anyway, the law as amended, which is now what it is, reads the way it does because that was the intention of the “Legislator”, capital L. If the legislator had wanted it otherwise, the legislator could have done so, but it did not. If Finance says the legislator made a mistake, well, it's the legislator's entitlement to make such a mistake. If it wants to correct it, it can. As I said, though, because it's revoking tax alleviation, it will first have to present to the House a motion of ways and means. Subsequently, by the way, that motion of ways and means will have to be concurred in by the House. Only then will you be able to introduce the bill, because you'll be revoking tax alleviation that was provided for in this bill. Not implementing it was never in the cards.