Update: As skdadl just pointed out in comments, the CTV story at the first link below bears little relation to the story I linked to. As of this writing, it's reporting that the Conservatives have agreed to "split off" a portion of C-23 that's sufficient to block any possibility of Homolka receiving a pardon. Mysteriously, there's no longer any mention that "CTV News learned" she might actually apply for one. What's that odd smell? The original post follows....
The CTV story includes this headline: MPs look for ways to derail Homolka pardon bid
So we've established that Karla Homolka is going to apply for a pardon, have we?
CTV News learned on Tuesday that she might apply for the pardon.
If you read the rest of the story looking for a source for that claim, you won't find one. Is it a different class of journalistic offence than anonymous sourcing if the story doesn't even bother to say that there's an anonymous source? Or are they just variations on a theme?
There is a government bill — C-23 — that would block Homolka's pardon if she does actually intend to apply but, according to CTV's news staff:
The bill is currently in the committee stage.
The NDP and Bloc Quebecois have stalled the legislation which was introduced in May.
Since May was just a bit more than two weeks ago and it normally requires 2 readings in the Commons before a bill even gets to committee, I'm not clear on what NDP and BQ MPs have been doing to stall this, unless by stalling they mean, you know, studying impending legislation and asking questions which I thought they were supposed to do.
On the flip, we'll look at the way the Winnipeg Free Press
reports the same story.