The BC NDP knows this issue is popular. Its own organizing page says: “Let’s get rid of ‘no pet’ clauses for purpose-built rental apartment buildings.” It tells supporters that renters are forced to choose between the housing they need and the pet they love.

But that is still campaign language, not delivered law. The province’s current Residential Tenancy Branch guidance says landlords state whether pets are allowed in the tenancy agreement. It also says some agreements include a no-pets clause, that landlords are not required to change that clause when a tenant wants a pet, and that getting a pet without permission can lead to eviction if the agreement says pets are not allowed.

That is the hard fact renters face today. The NDP can collect names on a petition page. A tenant reading the government’s actual rules still sees the landlord’s no-pet clause controlling the answer.

A housing promise with real consequences

This is not a boutique lifestyle complaint. In April, Global News reported that the BC SPCA and First United were pushing the province to end pet bans in rental housing. Their claim is that no-pet clauses force vulnerable renters, including seniors, low-income people and people fleeing violence, into impossible choices between shelter and an animal companion.

The BC SPCA also says about one-quarter of pet surrenders are linked to a lack of pet-friendly housing. That is an advocacy claim from the charity, not a government finding — but it is exactly the kind of claim a government should either act on or publicly answer.

What is sourced

  • The BC NDP page calls for removing no-pet clauses in purpose-built rental apartment buildings.
  • Current B.C. tenancy guidance still says tenancy agreements set whether pets are allowed.
  • The same guidance says landlords do not have to change a no-pets clause when a tenant wants a pet.
  • BC SPCA and First United have publicly called for changes to end pet bans in larger rental buildings.

Balance is possible. Silence is not.

Landlords do have legitimate concerns: damage, noise, allergies, insurance, strata rules and tenants who deliberately chose a no-pet building. Global News reported LandlordBC’s warning that changing the law could ignore those renters’ quiet-enjoyment expectations.

Fine. Then legislate carefully. Limit the rule to purpose-built rental apartment buildings, as the NDP’s own page suggests. Keep pet deposits, written rules, nuisance enforcement and damage remedies. Exempt small landlords if that is the policy choice. But stop pretending a pledge is progress while the official rule book still says no-pet clauses can stand.

The bottom line: Eby’s NDP sold renters a compassionate promise. As of today, the government’s own tenancy guidance still leaves many renters choosing between keeping a home and keeping a pet. In a housing crisis, that is not good enough.