BCFSA’s Approach to Real Estate Regulation: Remarks at BC Real Estate Association Annual General Meeting

• Industry Communications

25 March 2026

On March 24, 2026, BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) attended the BC Real Estate Association’s (BCREA) Annual General Meeting, where CEO Tolga Yalkin spoke about BCFSA’s risk-based regulatory approach and how it is a key driver in shaping confidence across B.C.’s financial services sector.

Yalkin also emphasized the important leadership role that brokerages, BCREA, and industry professionals hold in building and maintaining consumer confidence.

Read his full speech below.

Check against delivery.

Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to speak with you today.

I want to start by acknowledging the role BCREA and its members play in the real estate system in British Columbia. Many of you, along with your colleagues across the industry, are often the first point of contact for people navigating some of the most important financial decisions they will ever make. Decisions that can shape their security, their families, and their futures. That makes the work consequential, and it’s one reason it’s so important to pay close attention to how this system performs.

When the system works well, expectations are clear, and transactions are handled in a way people experience as fair and dependable. When it doesn’t, the consequences can be very real. They show up for consumers, for industry professionals, and for trust in the market overall.

When confidence starts to erode, even in small ways, it tends to compound over time. It can be gradual at first, and then suddenly show up at exactly the moment it’s needed most.

That idea of confidence is where I want to begin, because you’ve likely heard me say before that it shapes how we think about regulation at BCFSA.

Our purpose is simple to say, but not easy to deliver: to build and maintain confidence in B.C.’s financial services sector. In real estate, that confidence is built, or lost, one transaction at a time.

Confidence isn’t something regulation can simply declare into existence. It is earned through the decisions people make every day, by consumers, by professionals, and by the institutions around them.

Our job, as a regulator, is to set clear expectations, and to create the conditions for good decisions. Over time, those day-to-day decisions need to add up to a system people trust.

Last year, at the PacificWest Managing Broker’s Summit, I spoke about how the foundations of confidence are changing.

In a more stable environment, confidence can come from predictability and from established institutions.

But that’s not the environment we’re in now. We’re operating in a context of rapid change, including technology, economic volatility, and rising consumer expectations.

In that kind of environment, confidence plays a different role. It’s what allows the system to not only survive, but to thrive, when stability is no longer a given.

What I want to talk about today is how that translates into regulation. Specifically, how a more risk-based, proportional approach helps protect the confidence people place in this system.

Why this approach: why now

What’s different right now is that the sources of risk are shifting, so the way we protect confidence has to keep pace.

We’re seeing shifts in market conditions, business models, housing types, consumer expectations, and technology. At the same time, the regulatory environment is becoming more complex.

Against that backdrop, we are aiming to avoid simply adding more requirements or layering on additional processes.

We intend to be increasingly deliberate about:

• Where we focus
• Where we intervene
• Where we step back
• And how we use resources, including industry time and effort

That discipline matters. We are operating in a constrained fiscal environment, and expectations across the sector are already significant. The capacity of industry participants to absorb regulatory change is not unlimited.

If we continue to add expectations without adjusting where risk has shifted, we create friction without improving outcomes.

So the question is: what do we focus on—and how do we decide?

The core of our approach

At its core, our approach to oversight of the real estate industry is grounded in three things:

1. Transparency
2. Fairness
3. Professionalism

Transparency means consumers get the information they need when it matters.

Fairness means the system works for everyone, not just those who are most informed.

Professionalism is what makes both of those real in practice. It comes down to judgment, ethics, and conduct.

This isn’t about perfection in every transaction. It’s about outcomes, systemic risk, and overall confidence in the system.

How we will prioritize risk: why restraint matters

So, how do we intend to go about this work? We intend to be deliberate, and not try to regulate every risk.

In practice, that means:

• Focusing on issues that can cause real consumer harm or signal broader problems
• Looking at patterns and behaviours at the brokerage level (where oversight and operating decisions are made)
• Intervening earlier when we see risks emerging, and stepping back where brokerages can address issues appropriately

There are also things we will not do. We will not:

• Insert ourselves into every transaction
• Focus on low-value technical issues that do not create real harm
• Add processes that do not improve outcomes for consumers

That said, I should be clear: restraint is not about doing less overall. It’s about being clear on where effort adds the most value.

In complex systems, more control does not always lead to better outcomes. Being targeted often matters more.

Being more disciplined in how we apply regulatory effort

A core part of this approach is being more disciplined about where we apply regulatory effort. In practical terms, it means focusing more on outcomes and less on whether a particular process was followed.

Practically, that means:

• Eliminating low-value disclosure requirements
• Clarifying what information actually matters
• Simplifying rules where possible
• Focusing less on process for its own sake

None of this lowers the bar. If anything, it makes our expectations of professionalism even clearer: honesty, competence, and ethical conduct are non-negotiable.

Data, early intervention, and smarter supervision

To be disciplined in this way, we need better insight, and that insight will increasingly come from data.

I’m conscious that when we talk about data, it can raise concerns about more oversight or scrutiny.

Our intent is better targeting, so that oversight is proportionate and focused where it matters most.

With improved access to transaction data and stronger analytics, we will be able to:

• Identify issues earlier
• Focus our attention where it is needed
• Avoid broad, one-size-fits-all interventions

Better data allows us to be more precise. In turn, that reduces unnecessary or low-value intervention.

Over time, that means regulating less by default, and more by exception.

It also supports the many professionals who are doing the right thing. Addressing risks early helps prevent issues from escalating and affecting the broader system.

The role of brokerages

A key part of this approach is the role of brokerages.

We see brokerages as the first line of supervision and accountability.

Brokerages are where supervision can be exercised at scale, through training, policies, review, and culture. Focusing there is one of the most effective ways to improve outcomes without defaulting to transaction-by-transaction regulation.

That is why we pay close attention to patterns at the brokerage level.

We expect brokerages to:

• Take ownership of standards
• Address issues early
• Manage complaints appropriately
• Set expectations for professionalism

Confidence is shaped by what people experience, day to day.

Where brokerages take this seriously, our role becomes lighter.

Where they don’t, or where harm is significant, we will step in.

That is the balance we are trying to strike: lighter-touch oversight where brokerages take ownership and address issues early, and earlier intervention where they don’t.

What this means for industry

As we put this approach into practice, industry can expect:

• More clarity about what matters
• More focus on outcomes
• Earlier engagement when risks emerge
• Clearer boundaries around where we will intervene

Industry should not expect:

• Increased transaction-level oversight
• Regulation for its own sake
• A growing list of low-value requirements

Ongoing dialogue should also be expected. This approach is not static; it will evolve as we learn. That evolution will be reflected in what we focus on, what we step back from, and how we explain our decisions. If our actions do not match what has been outlined today, that feedback is welcome.

Closing

I’ll close where I began.

Confidence isn’t something this system inherits. It’s something it earns, through performance, day after day.

Last year, I spoke about how confidence supports resilience in a changing environment. Today, I’ve focused on what that means in practice for real estate regulation.

It means focusing on the risks that can undermine confidence, intervening earlier when we see problems emerging, and stepping back where strong supervision is already happening.

And we can’t do that alone. It depends on the leadership of brokerages, the day-to-day conduct of professionals, and the ongoing engagement of BCREA and its members.

If we get this right together, we strengthen confidence not just in individual transactions, but in the system as a whole.

Thank you. I welcome your questions and the discussion.