I would say no. As was probably evidenced in the first version of the website dated May 8, there was very much an intention to speak about the future state of the legislation. There are many parts of that document in which the future state of the legislation is spoken to. There was certainly an inconsistency, and I suspect we probably fell back on focusing too much on the technicality of the content rather than, necessarily, on the verb tenses, in some cases, speaking about the legislation in the future tense. I can assure you that everyone who works in the Canadian firearms program and who had a hand in working on this piece of communication and all communications related to this bill is very firmly aware of the parliamentary process and the privilege that comes with that.
On November 1st, 2018. See this statement in context.