CCAC (Canadian Council on Animal Care)

The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) is the national body that sets standards for, and certifies, animal-based science programs at Canadian universities, hospitals, government laboratories and companies. It is easy to conflate CCAC with an institution’s own oversight committee or with Canada’s Tri-Agency research funders, but its actual role is narrower and worth stating precisely: CCAC writes guidelines, assesses institutional programs against them, and certifies institutions that meet the standard. It does not review or approve individual animal-use protocols — that authority sits with each institution’s own Animal Care Committee (ACC), the Canadian counterpart to a US Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).

Governance: a volunteer-driven national council, not a government regulator

CCAC has operated since 1968 as what it describes as the only national oversight of animal-based scientific activities in Canada, run through “a rigorous process of assessment and certification, and standards development.” It is not a statutory government regulator with inspection or enforcement powers of its own; it is a non-profit council governed by a volunteer Board of Directors nominated and elected by member organizations, supported by more than 2,000 expert volunteers sitting on over 200 local Animal Care Committees and subcommittees across the country. CCAC is headquartered in Ottawa.

Its operating funds come primarily from two of Canada’s three federal research funders — the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) — plus annual program-participation fees paid by certified institutions. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the third Tri-Agency council, is not a CCAC funder, reflecting the underlying scope split: SSHRC-funded social-sciences and humanities research rarely involves live-animal work, while CIHR- and NSERC-funded health, life-science and engineering research is where most Canadian animal-based science happens.

Certification: the Certificate of GAP and the assessment cycle

Institutions that maintain an animal-based science program can enrol in CCAC’s certification program and hold a Certificate of GAP (Good Animal Practice). Certification is not a one-time badge; it is maintained through a recurring assessment cycle:

• Full Panel Assessment — a comprehensive, on-site peer review conducted by volunteer subject-matter experts roughly every six years.
• Interim Visit — a shorter review at the three-year midpoint, typically conducted by a CCAC associate director, focused on new activities and any areas of concern flagged since the last full assessment.
• Special assessments, convened when warranted or requested by the institution or a member of the public.

Each assessment evaluates three things together: the institution’s overall animal care and use program, how effectively its Animal Care Committee oversees that program, and whether its facilities, practices and procedures are appropriate — all measured against CCAC’s own guidelines, policies and associated documents, not against a separate government regulation. This program-level, committee-effectiveness focus is the key structural difference from protocol-level review: CCAC assesses whether an institution’s oversight system works, while the institution’s own ACC is the body that approves or rejects any specific use of animals.

The Three Rs, as CCAC implements them

Like every major animal-research oversight system, CCAC’s guidelines are built around the Three Rs — Replacement, Reduction and Refinement. CCAC requires that Animal Care Committees apply the Three Rs at the protocol-review stage: replacing animal use with non-animal methods wherever a scientifically valid alternative exists, reducing animal numbers to the minimum needed for valid results, and refining procedures to minimize pain and distress for animals that are still used. Rather than publishing the Three Rs as a stand-alone framework, CCAC operationalizes them through its species- and procedure-specific guidelines (covering topics from euthanasia to specific animal categories) and through the Three Rs of Humane Animal Experimentation module in its own training curriculum, described below — the same underlying ethical framework used by US IACUCs and by ANZCCART in Australia and New Zealand, applied here through CCAC’s own guideline documents and certification standard.

Animal-user training: Core Stream, and the “CIAUT” name researchers still search for

CCAC does not itself certify individual researchers. Instead, it publishes a national Core Stream training curriculum — currently three modules (Ethics in Animal Experimentation, Occupational Health and Safety, and the Three Rs of Humane Animal Experimentation) — as a resource that institutions and their Animal Care Committees use to build local training programs. CCAC is explicit that the specific training requirements and competencies expected of anyone using animals in science are determined by each institution’s own Animal Care Committee, together with local trainers and the institution’s senior administrator, not centrally mandated by CCAC itself.

Researchers and research-administration staff often still search for this training under an older name, Canadian Institutional Animal User Training (CIAUT) — a name that predates CCAC’s current “Core Stream” branding on its training portal. If you’re looking for CIAUT today, what you want is CCAC’s current Core Stream training modules: the underlying curriculum is the same territory (ethics, occupational health and safety, and the Three Rs), now organized and delivered through CCAC’s own training pages rather than under the CIAUT name. Confirm the exact modules and sign-off process with your own institution’s Animal Care Committee, since implementation is institution-specific.

How CCAC differs from CIHR and Tri-Agency funding requirements

CCAC is frequently confused with the Tri-Agency funders themselves, but the two sit in different roles. CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC fund research; CCAC certifies the institutional programs that use animals in that research. In practice, an institution’s eligibility to hold and administer CIHR or NSERC funds for an animal-based research program depends on maintaining a current CCAC Certificate of GAP — the same structural role the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare’s Animal Welfare Assurance plays for PHS-funded US institutions (see OLAW), though CCAC’s certification-and-assessment model, rather than an OLAW-style Assurance filing, is the specific mechanism in Canada.

CCAC also should not be confused with the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS 2), the other major Tri-Agency-linked ethics framework researchers in Canada encounter. TCPS 2 is the joint CIHR/NSERC/SSHRC policy governing research involving human participants, administered through Research Ethics Boards (REBs) and the TCPS 2: CORE tutorial that individual researchers complete. CCAC’s guidelines govern animal-based science instead, reviewed by an institution’s Animal Care Committee rather than an REB. A researcher whose work involves both human participants and research animals in the same Canadian institution will typically need both TCPS 2: CORE completion and CCAC-aligned animal-user training — they are parallel, not overlapping, requirements.

CCAC’s international counterparts

CCAC’s structural role has close analogues in other countries’ research systems, useful for anyone mapping Canadian requirements against a system they already know. In the United States, the closest equivalent split is between the IACUC (the institution-level committee with actual protocol-approval authority, playing the role of Canada’s Animal Care Committee) and federal oversight bodies like OLAW and USDA APHIS that administer Assurance and inspection requirements under the Animal Welfare Act — see CASRAI’s IACUC and animal research oversight guide and Animal Research Ethics: The 3Rs, IACUC Oversight, and the Law for the full US-side detail. In Australia and New Zealand, ANZCCART plays a similar advisory and training role to CCAC, supporting each institution’s Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) rather than a Canadian Animal Care Committee, though ANZCCART itself does not certify institutions the way CCAC does — CCAC’s certification-and-assessment authority is closer to a hybrid of ANZCCART’s advisory role and the Code-setting role that Australia’s NHMRC plays.

Frequently asked questions

Is CCAC a government agency?

No. CCAC is a non-profit, volunteer-governed national council, funded primarily by CIHR and NSERC plus institutional program fees. It sets and assesses standards; it has no statutory inspection or enforcement powers of its own.

What is the Certificate of GAP?

GAP stands for Good Animal Practice. It’s the certification CCAC awards to institutions whose animal care and use program, Animal Care Committee, and facilities meet CCAC’s guidelines, maintained through a Full Panel Assessment roughly every six years and an Interim Visit at the three-year midpoint.

Does CCAC approve individual animal-use protocols?

No. Protocol-level review and approval is done by the institution’s own Animal Care Committee. CCAC assesses whether that committee and the wider program are functioning correctly, not any single protocol.

Is CIAUT the same as CCAC’s current training?

Canadian Institutional Animal User Training (CIAUT) is the name many researchers still associate with Canada’s national animal-user training curriculum. CCAC now organizes that same subject matter — ethics, occupational health and safety, and the Three Rs — as its Core Stream training modules, delivered through CCAC’s own training pages rather than under the CIAUT name; check with your institution’s Animal Care Committee for the exact modules and sign-off process it requires.