These reports identify the strengths and weaknesses of a public hearing system that was effectively unchanged since the 1920s until the Province's Bill 44 cut back dramatically on their requirement so as to speed application turnarounds.
Last night, the six of us (minus the absent Cllr. McMath) listened closely to likely 50+ individuals over the course of 4.5 hours. The majority, as at the Sept. 2022 OCP and the June 19, 2023 Commitee of the Whole dedicated to the OCP, were waterfront land owners unhappy for various reasons with the Development Permit Area Guidelines section of the OCP.
Mayor and Council were required to remain attentive but entirely silent throughout the night as per this note we received beforehand: "With the Public Hearing for OCP Bylaw No. 800, 2022, now advertised ... some guidance on Council's role as required under the Local Government Act.
Before a Public Hearing, Council must not express opinions, debate the bylaw publicly, or encourage residents to support a particular outcome. Council is expected to come to the Public Hearing without pre-judgment, to listen to the public, and to keep an open mind. This expectation flows from section 465 of the Local Government Act, which requires that the public be given a fair opportunity to be heard before Council makes any decision. There is also established case law reinforcing that Council members must avoid pre-determination and the appearance of bias during statutory hearings.
It is, however, appropriate to encourage public participation in the Public Hearing and to let residents know that Council looks forward to listening to all perspectives.
Regarding public commentary, including posts on social media, interviews, newsletters, blogs or statements to residents, any communication that signals a fixed position or advocates for a specific vote may create the appearance of bias. This can undermine the integrity of the Public Hearing and may expose the District to procedural challenges.
Once the Public Hearing is closed, section 469(2) of the Local Government Act requires that Council must not receive or consider any further submissions from the public. This includes comments received through social media, email, or other channels. Decisions must be based solely on information presented during the Public Hearing, along with any technical clarification from staff that does not introduce new facts."
I respect and have abided (even on this blog, where I have exhaustively held back nothing on this subject) by these terms the last few weeks. I must acknowledge, however, how truly unhelpful and frustrating it was last night to remain silent when any one of us could have stepped in to answer questions, clear up confusion, acknowledge legitimate concerns and points well made, and challenge misinformation. I tried to maintain a poker face throughout and likely failed a few times.
(My leading, repeatedly voiced beef around public input to this OCP since the first draft was published in 2022 is the fact that disappointingly few correspondents or speakers at the mic makes direct page and paragraph references to their concerns. This makes constructively addressing these concerns difficult.)
Now over to the SFU team and its legal and municipal government partners for their expert perspective. I'll start with all the key links so you do your own depth dives. The screenshots below from the first of these links sum up the pros and cons neatly.
SFU and Related Reports
* The Future of Public Hearings In BC (May 2022) (starting point to understand up and downsides of public hearings)
* Renovate The Public Hearing: Final Report and Recommendations (Dec. 2024) + Abridged Report
* Financial Analysis of Direct and Indirect Costs of Pubic Hearings (Sept. 2024)
* Media Kit
* BC Law Institute Consultation Paper (2023) + Study Paper on Public Hearings (March 2022)
* Innovators' Forum Report (Sept. 2022)
* Slide deck (includes history of public hearings)
More on Public Hearings ...
* Local Government Public Hearings - Province of BC (2025)
* Info Sheet on Public Hearings - Union of BC Municipalities (updated 2021)
* Open Meetings in BC Local Governments 'Not Optional," says Omsbudsperson - CBC, Sept. 12, 2025
* Public Hearings Curbed in Housing Bill 44 - Les Leyne, Times Colonist, Nov. 4, 2023
* Public Hearings: A New Era - Young/Anderson Law, 2020
* Open Meetings: Best Practices Guide for BC Governments - Office of the BC Ombudsperson, Sept. 2012
All of what follows are direct clips from the RPHI reports ...
"Why Renovate the Public Hearing?As municipalities explore better ways to gather feedback from communities and leaders are asked to make an increasing number of land use decisions, it has been demonstrated that BC's current public hearing process is not designed to support an inclusive practice for strong decision-making. Instead, public hearings are often viewed as performative exercises that exacerbate societal divisions and leave people angry or apathetic toward local government. All of this indicates a critical opportunity for change, and many voices are now asking to revisit the purpose and process of BC's public hearings.
"Following an initial exploratory research and consultation phase in spring 2022, RPHI collaborated with local governments and community organizations in 2023 to experiment with and evaluate more equitable approaches to public participation. In parallel, RPHI’s partner, the British Columbia Law Institute (BCLI), is leading a legal reform study to support potential legislative change to enable these reforms. Significant shifts in legislation around public hearing requirements in BC in the fall of 2023 added further weight to RPHI’s findings, especially in relation to models that can support robust upstream public participation in place of site-by-site public hearings.
"In response to the housing crisis and provincial calls for policy and legislative change in land use planning, the Centre for Dialogue formed the Renovate the Public Hearing Initiative (RPHI) in 2022, to evaluate British Columbia’s primary form of public participation in land use decision-making: the public hearing.
History of Public Hearings
Public hearings, also known as public meetings or public inquiries, are a type of open engagement process where a government or other decision-maker can gather public input on a particular topic or issue. Public hearings are a widespread form of public engagement throughout Canada and across the world, particularly in nations that fall under the association of the Commonwealth. Public hearings emerged as a result of the evolution of British legal practice, shifts in governing values and actions of individuals.
Gaps In Representation
Public hearings tend to over-represent those who oppose a land use change, while those who may be positively impacted or neutral are less likely to attend. The considerations of future residents, including those with greater housing needs, are also less likely to be heard, encouraging “not-in-my-backyard” attitudes that impact sustainable growth.
Many members of the public face barriers that impede them from being aware of, accessing or participating meaningfully in engagement processes, such as time conflicts with work or caregiving responsibilities, mobility barriers, limited access to information or technology, lower levels of literacy, language differences and more.
Groups who face historical and ongoing marginalization, such as those with lived experience of housing needs or homelessness, are more likely to face barriers and remain underrepresented in traditional public participation opportunities, undermining the goal of using public participation as a tool to amplify their voices and advance their rights.
Conversely, groups who have been traditionally privileged with greater systemic access to resources, time, information and civic literacy are more likely to be over-represented, dominate discussions and have a disproportionate influence on outcomes. While public input in a public hearing is not binding and local governments retain the authority to make final decisions, in some cases, decision-makers are swayed by the majority opinion expressed during the hearing even when this directly contradicts evidence-based needs of other community members.
Challenges
Public hearings don’t typically establish the conditions for evidence-based deliberation among the public. The public receives limited information prior to the public hearing and information can be inaccessible for some residents who face language or literacy barriers. Only 23% of survey respondents felt that “public education” was a benefit of public
hearings.
Public hearings are designed for one-way communication, reducing participation to a binary of “for or against” instead of opening up a space for nuanced consideration of complex issues, and dialogue between decision-makers and the community.
Since public hearings are held late in a project’s approval process, it is often too late for community input to impact decision-makers. 65% of survey respondents felt that public hearings are too late to make a difference, and many other participants in RPHI’s workshops and interviews expressed that public hearings are not authentic avenues for public participation.
This was reinforced by RPHI’s jurisdictional scan, which demonstrated that the average amount of spoken and written correspondence at public hearings across BC typically represents significantly less than 1% of the total municipal population.
Public perceptions that the decision has been made prior to the public hearing can erode trust in local governments. Only 21% of survey respondents felt that “strengthening legitimacy of decisions” was a benefit of public hearings.
Public misunderstanding about the purpose and structure of a public hearing can lead to false expectations. The public may expect their submitted ideas will be adopted or acted upon or that the public hearing is a public referendum-style vote, leading to distrust in the outcomes.
Several interviewees suggested that holding a public hearing does not necessarily equate to a democratic process for land use planning, particularly due to the disproportionate influence certain members of the public can have on the outcomes.
Some aspects of the legislation for public hearings are vague, leading to great variation in how local governments across British Columbia govern their public hearings. Many of the procedures and requirements have been established through decades of court cases. This can lead to logistical obstacles or confusion for all those involved.
Additionally, participants in RPHI’s research expressed concerns around conflicts of interest or bias amongst those who chair public hearings that can influence their application of procedural norms.
Opportunities
Recent legislation now limits the use of site-by-site public hearings for housing developments that align with the OCP, increasing efficiencies and facilitating consideration of the community’s broader needs for sustainable growth.
Public hearings provide an established mechanism for public participation; providing municipalities with support to scale alternative and supplementary models of participation, such as online platforms or OCP engagement, could establish new norms for participation to support their sustained use.
Final Recommendations
Three of nine... full list on pg. 128 of the final report
Reorient Public Engagement to Official Community Plans (OCPs)
Our research and the British Columbia Law Institute (BCLI) consultation paper reveal that public hearings, as the most legislated form of land use public engagement, were originally designed to ensure procedural fairness, not to solicit input for improving land use bylaws. We recommend redirecting public engagement efforts to focus on the official community plan (OCP) at the earliest possible stage.
Our financial analysis on the direct and indirect costs of public hearings in land use planning also found that public engagement for affordable housing policy should be conducted at the comprehensive planning level, thereby obviating the need for costly and contentious site-by-site rezonings. This approach promotes consistency and efficiency in land use decision-making while fostering community input on broader housing strategies.
Implementing "Mini-Publics" for Inclusive and Robust Engagement
To address inherent limitations of traditional public hearings such as underrepresentation, polarization, time constraints and accessibility barriers, we recommend the adoption of mini-publics, including residents’ assemblies, as an upstreamed and structured public participation model for land use bylaw updates, particularly official community plan and zoning bylaw updates. These assemblies should occur in the earliest phase of a comprehensive plan update, not in phase 2 or 3 of the planning update, in order to incorporate design and strategic planning elements that build trust in the process, mitigate bias, enhance diversity, build consensus and promote deliberative, equitable dialogue. Given the growing role of OCPs in land use decision-making, local governments should prioritize these assemblies as part of a broader engagement strategy, complemented by open houses, town halls, “kitchen table dialogues,” digital online platforms, and youth and school outreach initiatives. This integrated approach would bolster the democratic legitimacy and public support of OCP outcomes.
Embedding Principle-Based Engagement in Land Use Planning
While waiving public hearings for site-by-site housing-focused rezonings and directing public engagement toward OCPs represents progress and an emerging best practice, we caution against any future legislative changes to waive public hearings for OCP bylaws without robust alternative participatory frameworks and public input mechanisms. This caution arises from concerns where traditional centralized planning has perpetuated practices of spatial and racial inequities, underscoring the need for principle-based public engagement measures.
We recommend that British Columbia’s government considers providing local governments with guidance to adopt and institutionalize principle-based frameworks—like the province of Victoria in Australia—that could include land use principles for engagement such as the REEDS (Reconciliation, Equitable Engagement, Evidence-Based Deliberation, Democratic Legitimacy and Sustainability) framework developed by the Renovate the Public Hearing Initiative, or other best practices from other jurisdictions. These principles would formalize and enhance land use bylaw engagement, ensuring transparency, equity and meaningful public participation while safeguarding against decisions contrary to the public interest."
Images from The Future of Public Hearings In BC (May 2022)


RSS Feed