BCFSA CEO - Remarks to Real Estate Regulators of Canada on Building Trust

• Industry Communications

16 June 2025

Speech | Tolga Yalkin – Vancouver, June 16, 2025

Check against delivery.

Trust Opens Doors: Building Trust to Enable Effective Regulation

I want to take a few minutes to talk about a principle that underpins how we, as regulators, build relationships and earn the ability to govern effectively. That principle is trust.

Trust is not just a desirable quality in the regulatory system. It is a critical enabler of our ability to deliver on our public mandate—and it is foundational to how we engage with industry, how we approach supervision and policy, and how we shape the long-term health of the sectors we oversee.

It determines how openly risks are surfaced. It influences whether expectations are understood and accepted. And it affects the overall credibility and impact of our actions.

Trust is not something that can be legislated. It must be built—over time, through consistent conduct, clarity of purpose, and respect across all interactions.

A Personal Reflection on Trust

Before turning to our regulatory work, I want to share a personal story that illustrates this dynamic in very human terms.

When I was in high school, my cousin had a Pontiac Sunfire. I’m likely dating myself here—but at the time, it was one of the most striking cars I had seen. It was sleek, and it had that “Sea Green Metallic” finish—a colour that, in the ‘90s, was considered very sophisticated.

On the day of my graduation, she let me borrow it. That was no small gesture. Handing over the keys to a car—particularly to a teenager—requires a significant degree of trust.

She had to believe that I would drive responsibly, take care of the car, and return it in one piece. And I knew what it meant to be trusted in that way.

Now, driving a Pontiac Sunfire and regulating a complex financial sector aren’t the same thing. But in one important respect, they’re not so different. In both cases, trust is what allows things to move—safely, purposefully, and with accountability.

And in the regulatory world, trust plays much the same role. Without it, nothing moves forward—not supervision, not engagement, not effective governance.

Embedding Trust in Regulatory Practice

That is why we have taken care to embed trust across the way we operate. Not as a vague aspiration, but as a disciplined, structured approach to regulatory engagement.

Our thinking rests on four interdependent elements:

• Trust is foundational: It is earned through competence, consistency, and respect. Trust is what allows open dialogue, early risk identification, and regulatory action that has legitimacy.
• Purpose gives trust direction: We must be clear about why we act. Our purpose is always anchored in the public interest. That clarity is what turns trust into something durable.
• Boundaries keep trust intact: Trust needs limits. That means setting clear expectations, being explicit about scope, and maintaining discipline in how we act and what we ask of others.
• Balance ensures trust is mutual: We aim to create partnerships that are respectful and reciprocal—that support collaboration without compromising our responsibilities.

These principles shape our approach to all sectors—from credit unions to mortgage brokers to insurers to the real estate sector.

Putting These Principles into Practice

Let me give just one example. As part of our work in the real estate sector, we are engaging with data-holding entities to explore access to transaction-level data—specifically, from the Multiple Listing Service or MLS. For those unfamiliar, MLS is the system real estate professionals use to list, search, and share property information. It is both a marketing tool and a valuable source of data that reflects market activity.

Our current compliance model in real estate is largely complaints-driven. While important, that model is inherently reactive. It surfaces issues only after harm has occurred. It does not give us the visibility we need to understand emerging risks or systemic patterns.

We have strong licensing data. We can see complaints, audits, and disciplinary outcomes. But we have little visibility into the space between those events—into how the market is actually operating.

What’s needed is a more data-informed approach—one that supports proactive, risk-based supervision, strengthens public confidence, and enables us to provide sound policy advice.

And in pursuing that goal, we have followed the principles I just described.

We have focused on building trust: through open dialogue with boards and associations, through consistency in how we show up, and through transparency about what we seek and why.

We have grounded our work in clear purpose: improving the quality of oversight, identifying risk more effectively, and serving the public interest.

We have maintained boundaries: articulating scope, protecting confidentiality, and ensuring we are not asking for more than we need to deliver on our mandate.

And we have sought to strike a balance: reducing ad hoc requests, designing more predictable approaches, and identifying ways that shared data can benefit both regulatory and industry outcomes.

Conclusion: Trust as a Strategic Asset

Returning to that Pontiac Sunfire for a moment—my cousin handed me the keys because she trusted me. But it worked because expectations were clear, boundaries were respected, and the relationship had balance.

The same is true in regulation.

If we sustain trust, act with integrity, stay disciplined in purpose, and build balance into the way we work—we can deliver regulation that is principled, effective, and worthy of public confidence.

That’s what enables us to navigate complexity with care—and to support a sector that earns public confidence and is positioned to thrive.