I actually hope Canon keeps the AA filters a part of their lineup, and if they ever decide to create a camera without one, that they always make it an OPTIONAL body subtype.
Canon gave DPP that IPSF tool to deal with the negative aspects of the AA filter and some lens errors - they gain less then Nikon from leaving the filter out. Not that the difference is that large, at least once you're out of the lab.
I'd guess the filter stays, esp. with Canons affinity to video and the problem off removing artefacts from that many pictures. Thats unless common sense has to take a backseat because of marketing decisions.
You can't really remove moire in post. You can try, but the only way to really do it is blur the detail by a significant degree in those areas. When properly done, the use of an AA filter INCREASES your ability to resolve fine detail usefully
. There are some forms of photography where having no AA filter is great, and rarely if ever leaves you with the need to clean up or soften areas of your photos in post...a lot of (but not all) landscape photography is like this. However the cases where aliasing and moire present are quite considerable. Even assuming you have excellent tools in post to deal with them, it is just extra work that an AA filter does for you. And that extra work can be costly even if you are not dealing with video, and for the kind of stuff I shoot, I'd experience both moire and aliasing all too frequently.
As I mentioned before...given my experience with the 7D and a number of Canon's newest lenses, I completely disagree with the notion that the AA filter is too strong. With a good lens, sharpness and detail are top notch, not a hint of softness to be found...and neither is there any aliasing or moire either. I'll happily keep my AA filter in lieu of having extra crap to deal with in post.