There are regulations, but they’re not the same. I think it’s not really appropriate to compare animal testing to human testing for the primary reason that humans have the ability to provide consent.
For animal testing, I really don’t like the current idea being proposed here of basing this on how we feel about cats and dogs vs. mice and other animals. Some other metric like brain size or something about consciousness maybe, but that’s very hard to determine as well.
While I personally think there’s enough benefit to society to do some animal testing, I think a law that said no animal testing would be more ethically consistent than banning only cats and dogs.
The real thing that should be addressed here is better regulation, not arbitrary bans.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982, so this has nothing to do with the formation of Canada, only this charter and the Constitution.
Before that we had the Bill of Rights (enacted in 1960) and before that we had no formal expression of human rights in Canada.
Forming Canada happened back in 1867.
It is true that the Notwithstanding Clause was negotiated and we likely wouldn’t have the charter without it, but it was very “late” in Canada’s history.