This is what MAPAQ and the SPCA finds acceptable for a so-called rescue

These pictures are dated between 2012 and march 2013 taken in St-Aime at Louise Gagnon’s place. The CSPCA inspected and did nothing, MAPAQ inspected providing recommendations. The CSPCA ignored the witness because they claim it to be a conflict of interest as she is a registered CKC breeder filing complaints against a “rescue”.

MAPAQ you have a problem on your hands… When comparing the PRU (Paws R’ Us) case, or even the CCM (Chow Chow Man) case, how can this be considered suitable living conditions? Learn the law you wrote and apply it equally… http://canlii.ca/t/xbh
55.9.2. The owner or custodian of an animal shall ensure that the safety and welfare of the animal are not jeopardized. The safety or welfare of an animal is jeopardized where
(1) the animal does not have access to drinking water or food in quantities and of a quality in keeping with its biological requirements;
(2) the animal is not kept in premises that are suitable, salubrious, clean and adapted to the animal’s biological requirements and where the installations are not likely to affect the animal’s safety or welfare or is not properly transported in an appropriate vehicle;
(3) the animal does not receive the health care required by its condition while it is wounded, sick or suffering;
(4) the animal is subject to abuse or ill-treatment that may affect its health;
(5) (paragraph repealed).
1993, c. 18, s. 6; 2000, c. 40, s. 29; 2012, c. 18, s. 5.