360 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
primarily served to make the act more specific. 
Two levels of cruelty were defined and penalties 
specified— aggravated cruelty, resulting in death 
or severe injury or disease (fined at about $1,400 
and/or 1 to 2 years imprisonment), and simple cru- 
elty, resulting in pain or distress (fined at about 
$700 and/or 6 months) (2). 
In addition to the act’s prohibitions, it requires 
that those performing surgery have certain scien- 
tific credentials or a license. Recognizing that 
credentials alone do not prevent cruelty, the Min- 
ister for Local Government has the power to re- 
quire those performing surgery as licensees to re- 
port the details of a procedure (1). 
In 1985, the New South Wales Parliament passed 
legislation establishing an Animal Research Review 
Panel to oversee licensing of research institutions 
and animal suppliers. Each institution is required 
to establish its own review committee (56). These 
requirements make the laws of New South Wales 
quite similar in their comprehensiveness and ap- 
proach to the laws existing in Western Europe. 
CANADA 
As in the United States and Australia, the Prov- 
inces have primary authority over animal use; na- 
tional action is not taken unless there are inter- 
provincial or national concerns. Although Canada 
has no national legislation pertaining specifically 
to protecting laboratory animals, it has a compre- 
hensive voluntary national system. 
Three Provinces have legislation affecting lab- 
oratory animal use: Two deal primarily with 
procurement of unclaimed pound animals (8,9,10), 
while Ontario has a more comprehensive Animals 
for Research Act, amended in 1979 (6) and ac- 
companied by regulations (7). Many provisions of 
the Ontario law parallel the voluntary national 
program. 
Although Canada is rather proud of its volun- 
tary program, some Canadian animal protectionists 
are not satisfied. Vandalism and threats against 
an official have occurred at the University of Brit- 
ish Columbia in Vancouver, the Clarke Institute 
of Psychiatry in Toronto has been firebombed, and 
protesters have campaigned against the use of 
pound animals at Dalhousie University (55). 
Many years ago, scientists at the University of 
Alberta went further than their counterparts in 
other Provinces in protecting animal welfare . They 
employed a research veterinarian who upgraded 
their facilities to levels as high as animal hospitals 
and clinics, added various precautions against the 
use of stolen dogs, and established open commu- 
nication with the press and the local community. 
Another policy, certainly welcomed by dog en- 
thusiasts, has been the gradual replacement of the 
dog with the small Yucatan pig for many kinds of 
experiments. Some Alberta researchers feel that 
animal protectionists have not been active in Al- 
berta because of these initiatives (55). 
Canada’s voluntary national program is run by 
the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC). The 
first step toward the creation of the CCAC was 
taken in 1963, when the Canadian Medical Re- 
search Council requested the National Research 
Council (of Canada) to investigate the procurement 
of experimental animals, the facilities for their care, 
and control of experiments. This request followed 
on the heels of the inauguration of the Canadian 
Society for Animal Care (which became the Cana- 
dian Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 
an organization similar to the American Associa- 
tion for Laboratory Animal Science). 
After completing its investigation, the National 
Research Council recommended that institutions 
voluntarily assess and control animal experimen- 
tation through: 
• animal care committees that would monitor 
care and use of experimental animals and en- 
sure compliance with uniform standards; 
• Provincial advisory boards to deal with pro- 
curement matters; and 
• a national, independent advisory body to estab- 
lish guiding principles and oversee their appli- 
cation and to advise Provincial governments. 
- 
