| 
  鲜花(0 )   鸡蛋(0 ) | 
 
| Canada's housing market both vigorous and stable . [# h8 M% s- F4 i. [ % @* _. H  E9 q* |7 ^
 - Country's market poised to show growth throughout 2006 -
 9 [; w* p- \$ Q8 X! d* s" ~  U2 B5 B4 }
 TORONTO, Sept. 28 /CNW/ - For most of Canada, the housing market# g  }  z! F; R" a, p5 N7 ]
 exhibited moderate price increases and stable unit sales during the third
 * O! D8 _4 u/ i) @8 Vquarter. Wide regional variances continued to be the dominant characteristic
 2 K# H; `, ^5 t4 L. o4 @4 Bin the market, exemplified by frenzied levels of activity and double digit
 / v- Z7 H) U2 v- y+ l5 [9 [price gains observed in the energy and commodity rich Western provinces, and
 - D4 I) ~: F4 c: k3 p8 g- xmore reasonable sales volumes and moderate price appreciation in Ontario,
 / d) j" v! D9 f: @Quebec and Atlantic Canada, according to a report released today by Royal! |# Q& m; M* H' w3 B0 b) Q/ `9 K: i  m
 LePage Real Estate Services.& ]; K; D2 n/ X5 R; L- Y! j( w
 
 + J* U- I. C! ]9 P8 L6 L    Nationally, market trends established through the first three quarters4 w# E6 v. w9 v4 T8 k* v% n' p6 c/ G
 are forecast to continue for the remainder of the year. Robust economic7 u9 }% p; L& V$ N, \9 z' }( d, D
 conditions, low unemployment rates, modestly growing salaries and wages, and
 3 S4 Z5 g9 g9 w. v9 k' Wsound consumer confidence contributed to the overall strength of the
 + n7 l8 t) W" a: `- n2 cresidential real estate sector.
 , H$ f8 \: x. C# V* v! w. r5 P. q
 / X4 x2 X( f1 f/ w& O8 I    Of the housing types surveyed, the highest average price appreciation
 / b* M; m% b# k  M; J; @occurred in detached bungalows, which rose to $300,365 (+16.3%)
 9 q; S, S) K, n% v- u0 O# uyear-over-year, followed by standard condominiums, which rose to $211,562
 0 a. W( c! E6 T0 Q1 r! h* {(+14.2%), and standard two-storey properties, which increased to $365,380
 - m$ K: Y, _6 i" e( R, r& m(+13.2%).
 . h0 `& A6 B% R' M# G* r6 A0 w4 Z$ n6 m
 "Canada's sturdy housing market continued to demonstrate steady growth
 ; x3 I3 X) g: W; F3 p  iduring the third quarter. For all but the west, we have moved on from the6 I: J' ~) z* b# j, ~$ W, y
 frenzied expansion that characterized the first half of this decade, and are
 ; T% k, r2 n7 d- Tpoised to show continued growth at a more moderate pace," said Phil Soper,
 1 H# M1 u: _/ V! J' H( E! tpresident and chief executive officer, Royal LePage Real Estate Services.
 9 N: Z. W, P8 n% V! s$ `0 }* M" q+ W1 F+ B"Gone is the sellers' market that we have lived with for some years. We& z8 b7 G1 M) Z# Y
 welcome the more reliable conditions that are characteristic of a healthy  [% ?, A0 L% `. n+ c
 balanced market."5 `0 L) k" M* W5 P# @
 
 2 W' T- Y2 k' Y, g    Despite the double-digit rise in average national house prices,
 2 X8 p4 q* N+ y, Pconsiderable regional variances were exhibited again this quarter. The shift
 " u5 k& l' D1 P: E* I$ Lto balanced market conditions, which began in late 2005, has continued- i$ T* G6 d6 f+ ]. A) Z8 y
 throughout most of the Central and Eastern regions of the country. In the core2 X* t1 w! W3 S$ D* B/ Q! u% _5 {
 energy producing western provinces, the combination of very high in-migration,. ~2 O, p3 O+ j& F! c! z
 manageable affordability, and a shortage of inventory has driven record# p% [. r) B  c/ W! j, B
 breaking price appreciations.+ Z1 d# i" ^3 f& P9 l
 
 ; p6 a. E9 E  O    Echoing the second quarter and supported by Alberta's rapidly expanding
 9 m! M* D& F/ _  P  o& {economy, Calgary and Edmonton led the charge of Canadian cities with the& f; t9 s# K( }8 q% s. M" K0 T
 largest house price appreciation in all housing types surveyed.$ k/ x! U& u6 H. y- A, e. ?2 ^# C1 F
 * S) W- `5 v% \: m
 In Ottawa and Toronto, growth remained steady, supported by solid
 : V: C2 ?- r2 zeconomic fundamentals, an increase in available inventory and strong consumer) C) f7 Y. U2 E  u& M' w% h0 U0 m
 confidence. While the pace of price appreciation in Ontario leveled off
 6 r; D5 {5 m" @6 M. F3 ?2 Qslightly, the province's real estate market remains poised for modest growth.8 Y" ]4 e  N+ L" M
 In Atlantic Canada, new housing and condominium construction offered buyers. j. i- W, `6 R- h% _# ?  L
 greater selection at more competitive prices, resulting in a slower rate of
 ) {. i2 H" m( Gprice appreciation when compared with 2005.6 f; r! {. i: W# M
 * u3 w) N; {% Z5 J
 While the pace of growth in Canada has slowed, the domestic housing
 ! j" B& s! R' l5 e! H2 ]market is expected to outperform the American market. The economic and; z' _; H9 f! w& b4 e
 financial fundamentals driving the residential real estate sector in Canada
 `+ ^$ o, s) p3 _are markedly different than those found in the United States.- u  d- N+ z3 @. t& c4 o
 
 4 D5 B- \# D) C8 Y* ?; m6 C$ u    Added Soper: "Canada's housing market is likely to outperform the8 w) Y+ O: a3 O# J- X$ P
 American market through 2007. A number of factors are working in Canada's
 8 M2 _) H0 L. L8 E: r' Yfavour, including healthy personal and governmental debt levels, the
 & n/ m2 o* C  E3 Wrelatively modest rise in interest rates in our country, and general
 9 @6 r5 Y, _5 i$ a' B0 |6 Taffordability in our major cities. In addition, Americans are now seeing the7 s6 Y% p+ W$ S5 {/ B' J
 downside of a tax system that encourages maximum homeowner leverage, and
 3 L8 g$ N  L8 N& T) f/ B/ q0 Iaggressive financial products such as zero- and negative-amortization
 % V( n/ E. Z4 amortgages that work only in a high price growth environment."5 P% b) |8 G, ]: e% L- G% ]
 
 * E- P1 I0 g! M/ u    <<% L" R" [: E, C5 @
 REGIONAL SUMMARIES8 r: t! i$ n# m; B: ?
 >>- q, R# X# H  ^6 X! L; [
 
 & S8 V% |' Q4 s5 U    Balanced conditions continued to characterize the housing market in* T) Z) h; t* Y
 Halifax, as significantly higher inventory levels helped to moderate the rate
 ) u* U% @! h1 V) s: a/ Eof price appreciation. Buyers were increasingly choosy, taking more time% Z2 Z9 m) O& n; {  T) z& b
 looking for newer, low-maintenance properties that were not in need of
 2 |5 Z! V9 ~. ~! drenovations.
 5 e: Z/ E7 u2 `  b7 {$ ^( D3 F/ o* N+ l2 u% Z
 The housing market in Moncton remained healthy and strong as a slight
 5 h- i& [7 B* H# Z+ b  ^, nincrease in inventory helped to moderate the rate of price appreciation
 . g5 U2 O2 W$ \. {% z/ ~! l( H, Xcompared to the same period in 2005. Activity was brisk throughout August and$ P' a0 ~7 T' u. |
 September and is expected to remain this way through the fourth quarter.. a2 R( O$ U% @9 Z/ x/ I# x/ p
 . Q- r0 h  O  G6 |
 The housing market in Saint John underwent its traditional summer  w' s$ v5 L* Y
 slowdown in the third quarter, with activity picking up towards the end of the4 ]! l1 W7 M' A( a! [2 z
 quarter. The local economy continued to thrive, as construction on a new
 $ r# t. J. \- k; h9 Z# u6 W600,000 square-foot shopping area has begun, bringing several new box stores
 6 H% `/ `1 \- Z0 a  nto the area. Buyers have begun seeking less expensive fixtures for their homes( }+ ~# W( x! ?2 o) A' X% h
 and are instead opting for more affordable housing options.
 - p+ i+ n2 [. w- y$ ?9 |" V2 @+ ^( m6 E
 In Charlottetown, the housing market started to move towards balanced) |) w; S1 {0 [
 conditions, as some sellers had to begin to lower the asking prices on their
 6 p; d& \; ?& Ghomes to make them more competitive. Activity from out-of-town and US buyers
 ) h% q% c; O3 `/ `, M+ ]was down slightly compared to 2005, likely attributable to the strong Canadian
 ! M, Z7 \, Y: U( y- y; U- ^dollar. Inventory levels began to creep up in the third quarter, providing' y; ]  b% t( Q; z0 ?
 buyers with more options when looking for a home.
 3 I$ r6 x% c. X( A0 e
 : w4 ^- q- ^7 ]    Activity in St. John's slowed slightly in the third quarter, particularly
 3 ?' J! c% q. o+ B  samong higher-priced properties, where there was a slight over-supply of homes
 % j( f; a5 h8 A! v* j2 D0 }9 Kpriced over $200,000. Listing periods have increased when compared with 2005,
 / m$ j% _' `. L  y: t7 |5 kas some of the pent-up demand that had characterized the market over the last
 % I6 q4 Z7 B5 G9 kfew years has been satisfied, resulting in more normal, balanced conditions.$ P9 v1 s$ x$ F
 
 : @# u; l6 O/ Q+ r, C* _( G& R    Montreal's housing market recorded modest increases in average house! s* p5 }; F5 P+ e
 prices, due to a slight seasonal slowdown in the third quarter as inventory
 0 `, |" z+ S0 p* x7 zlevels rose. Part of this can be attributed to the fact that many renting
 . g1 r8 S" P2 I! Zfirst-time buyers were motivated to close on the purchase of a home by July 1,* k3 r# W7 E% C+ B
 when rental leases expire in Quebec. Once this date has passed some of the, F. J, h4 E& a+ c7 \$ m
 pressure is taken off the market, allowing buyers to visit more homes before
 # Z4 D, b, J2 G6 z2 Zmaking a purchase.
 3 r, A2 P, {  a$ M' r0 W  L( b
 / ^5 q8 m% z% e4 }  i    Ottawa held its position as one of the country's most stable housing
 # N9 H/ \1 _/ K: i! ?0 j# nmarkets in the third quarter, reinforced by a vibrant local economy and strong2 ]4 M; B! o  `4 ~; H
 confidence, resulting in modest increases in average house prices. The city
 ; x2 Z8 P; ^- M* gcentre remained a bright spot in Ottawa, with homes in this area attracting
 5 N) H) [8 r8 w# E) P9 }3 k5 kattention due to their convenient location and proximity to downtown
 - R' ^/ Y( o+ f$ d! |& p/ }amenities.$ T+ \) L& y( Z
 
 - q5 B6 y. F+ E$ F    The housing market in Toronto sustained healthy activity levels" d4 ^# E% ?, E& _( w* z6 Q
 throughout the third quarter, as a strong economy helped to maintain demand1 I4 h, V( P0 i1 |9 C6 {
 across the city, causing average house prices to rise moderately. Toronto has
 / h; o% J7 p. y0 Q( mcontinued to experience modest growth in average house prices, and has been: I6 f/ ^- ^% K/ |9 e+ w" ]) b& x
 driven primarily by purchasers who are buying homes as their principle! [+ h4 Q% k/ ]( E- K
 residence, rather than for investment.
 & |; h; B* N( |1 H! f3 E$ `& o% o  {& ~3 l' f+ n! E! Q
 The vibrant Winnipeg housing market continued to show its strength as
 2 }* b5 j9 x* s( |- d1 N5 {house prices rose during the third quarter. The booming local economy resulted
 ( {: {. v, x1 }) qin a historically low unemployment rate, helping to bolster consumer) H+ n+ c  n- T  }. C5 {' g5 @, [, R5 U
 confidence and Winnipeg's ranking as the city with the lowest capitalization
 6 @$ ~4 ?( E& i+ \6 M' J/ T+ Rrate among the country's larger cities - helped to encourage buyers to enter
 7 L- x7 _6 W/ ^9 I3 F$ f0 Zthe market.6 ]& S  t. c8 D; g: ?1 N0 {+ H
 p4 u& X9 [7 A+ ?2 n1 x
 In Regina, the market experienced a slight seasonal slowdown through
 : X/ X3 R- Z+ j- j, a5 |July, as there were fewer purchasers in the market due to summer vacations. In
 $ s( Z$ t$ h# VAugust, activity resumed to the busy pace previously seen in the spring% _" |4 l6 d9 {1 q
 months, as the influx of purchasers made it more difficult to find a home due0 h4 u4 t1 j! w# m! q1 }
 to the shortage of available inventory.
 ( F6 s3 \6 i4 S0 e/ S  o7 S
 2 t$ }# ]1 I; S    Activity in Saskatoon remained brisk as the market maintained its
 ; E' [7 Q1 f/ Q" G6 h) |# q# U& ?momentum from the busy spring sales period. The economy in Saskatoon remains' ^5 X" d# V' D/ B3 E9 W: }) R4 t4 G
 vibrant, as employment opportunities are abundant with many businesses
 # h* x3 k) u8 v  K. vstruggling to make hires and having to recruit outside the province.+ o+ a* b7 X2 |: m$ ^- i
 2 t0 R$ _2 C# ^, j, v  f
 Calgary's housing market recorded blazing average house price increases
 g& e1 o7 i0 K2 E( t! U( ?) U' D* Win the third quarter, in all surveyed categories. The burgeoning economy, low8 @7 `; u$ S0 M/ @( Y
 unemployment rates and low inventory levels remained the leading factors that! x: t. ~+ U) V1 x) o, k
 pressured Calgary's house prices upwards. However, regardless of the soaring& D* w; x+ W, m# h
 prices that characterized the market - even during the typically slower summer5 p/ S1 _/ {$ h+ h5 }, Q' ?0 \
 season - it is expected that activity will become slightly more balanced, as
 ) o* |( ^4 X! _4 A8 d( wbuyers are becoming more reluctant to participate in the frenetic activity.
 1 A1 |* u5 ^# D$ p. J. X
 4 C. Y. O* b* _" k* |( R1 k8 U    Edmonton's booming local economy continued to thrive in the third quarter! Q. j1 P* M* a5 @# ^0 F
 as activity in the oil sands north of the city continued to flourish. Edmonton9 }7 }) z+ `6 J6 Q: [0 B0 q
 remained the hub of activity for those coming to work in the oil industry,
 ( X$ P6 p  R) }) w# M3 j$ _6 ymaintaining tight inventory levels across the city, resulting in prices# G$ F* c4 l7 s: n
 increasing at record levels. However, as inventory levels continued to improve
 4 j8 n4 R1 v; p- S) K5 Tin the third quarter the rate of price appreciation should moderate slightly
 / ?# S2 P7 q$ o& W" `towards the end of 2006.
 * {% K7 \* @* O1 E; ^: e; B. S; \9 b5 y0 B3 H8 }9 M& k
 While Vancouver has seen a slight reprieve from the severe shortage of/ z4 q7 c/ i0 H5 h" _) L
 inventory that had previously characterized the market, supply is still unable
 # d# g8 s& R5 Rto meet demand, driving house prices upwards. Vancouver has a very diverse' V+ P1 f' W0 S, \9 T; K
 group of active buyers - from first-time home buyers to baby-boomers to: o# N5 u! q5 K7 Y
 foreign investors - all of whom fuel the demand for houses, placing added& w2 R* F- U& K5 F
 pressure on tight inventory levels.
 : i1 Z2 g1 x! V8 f0 K2 F
 , [8 C% z' n3 Z    Victoria's market is vibrant and supported by strong economic9 Q2 k5 U1 {) _% N% v' Z+ y. \6 g
 fundamentals, fuelled by a booming tech sector and a migration of young people* t, M5 v# S6 q* X. l" y
 into the city that has continued to support the area's house price increases;' F' b# {4 }! r. [& h; [" l+ \
 while increased inventory levels have afforded buyers more time when searching
 ' x# u( A1 ^- {5 Y. M2 u  A0 ofor a home, helping to normalize the market's pace.4 u6 K4 x0 u1 d& p6 `  z2 t
 - G+ ?* q2 c/ p& P0 K3 A& y
 <<
 # ]5 ?6 I1 O4 d6 ^  A' N" K$ m- v$ e      Survey of Canadian Average House Prices in the Third Quarter 2006+ @: |  P2 c1 w0 U  k7 G7 j
 $ g4 e& u! q/ ]+ A1 m' x$ N
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------0 v' k5 A4 x. g: G& a3 K, T) q
 Detached Bungalows                Standard Two Storey2 l5 Z7 h+ ~9 p" I6 D1 x& X
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------2 O6 q% |' L* E7 N) j% ]
 2006 Q3     2005 Q3    Bungalow     2006 Q3     2005 Q3: V- o5 I7 c- i
 Market           Average     Average    % Change     Average     Average) ~' v6 [4 h1 q. z
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------' o2 X/ U  l  S/ D# D* V! l$ C, a
 Halifax          186,333     173,333        7.5%     198,667     199,0005 C0 f3 E) F; D* l9 e- C
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ' ~# I1 N3 j; d/ q  q/ |" Y; L: h4 Q    Charlottetown    145,000     141,000        2.8%     175,000     170,000% S  k% U) o: [4 Y+ @6 F/ ?6 R
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------7 \7 I) p9 L& p/ V
 Moncton          135,000     127,000        6.3%     129,000     123,000
 % A9 h. R7 Y" Q: h2 b    -------------------------------------------------------------------------* N5 k* [  [3 `, B; L
 Saint John       141,200     142,900       -1.2%           -           -+ `+ X  h7 j; W% C0 E% O$ b/ v
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 , I, ~, n/ @( \* a; r6 E    St. John's       143,667     142,667        0.7%     200,667     202,333
 * z, A. }! c+ {9 V: l% \9 A; s    -------------------------------------------------------------------------+ x- |2 d' Q( c$ I% {3 y) r8 r/ F
 Atlantic         150,240     145,380        3.3%     175,833     173,5836 [; Q) H0 [4 Y9 p$ ^3 q- H4 z
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 # F/ I2 v" w9 j2 [& Z! Z    Montreal         213,691     203,500        5.0%     321,141     316,185
 2 R( K  K8 ]5 l    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 . g7 x# }. V$ ?( h    Ottawa           290,083     278,417        4.2%     285,667     273,250
 ) Y+ G" ]3 G' f  D: j    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1 r9 Z) H3 f9 p7 f    Toronto          373,368     355,882        4.9%     481,523     474,7668 F/ U# b% q7 J! H2 Z, e5 N; p
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 0 l5 C2 L/ l  X: L3 v1 u4 S    Winnipeg         181,579     159,860       13.6%     202,337     180,707
 * x0 S1 A4 P. d5 I8 `0 z4 Y7 J3 d    -------------------------------------------------------------------------: |: i: n9 A) I
 Saskatchewan     170,667     156,083        9.3%     182,600     166,5003 M) g) S1 k; U7 H
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------5 m1 a; o1 u! N
 Calgary          395,067     252,411       56.5%     405,778     264,389
 ( z8 s5 C1 c3 K/ r+ e' [  R! R    -------------------------------------------------------------------------1 i  Q* @" D& c$ ]" X
 Edmonton         286,857     194,857       47.2%     316,429     206,714
 3 u7 D$ c8 {( z    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9 a6 f& A4 X$ O1 ~3 D: c9 i, @" s    Vancouver        704,250     601,000       17.2%     794,000     697,500
 6 U; X0 P) r% Y6 c5 Y# m& f    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ) |: H/ C5 d9 G    Victoria         375,000     348,000        7.8%     403,000     391,000
 - w4 K' I5 x4 D. ~% z4 p% c. z& \    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1 V0 L+ M, g5 @1 W9 \4 h' Z% K. Z    National         300,365     258,202       16.3%     365,380     322,860
 % {; Y3 |. p. F4 q* e% U  d    -------------------------------------------------------------------------, P5 B6 x8 N0 L: R
 
 ( }5 K/ a4 ?4 H' o2 G    -------------------------------------------------------------8 X0 x9 c8 X6 ?
 Standard Condominium* D4 d1 e: {# Z' Q2 b& i
 -------------------------------------------------------------& d/ w2 F5 ?9 g4 x
 2-Storey     2006 Q3     2005 Q3       Condo1 @; X( X$ [$ K  G
 Market          % Change     Average     Average    % Change
 ( f; e; b  _; _  _( R$ n  d' a    -------------------------------------------------------------
 " ^3 W+ r* {7 M* a+ \  @    Halifax            -0.2%     142,000     103,000       37.9%
 5 v9 i; n  V1 @) L    -------------------------------------------------------------: s% O* |! R2 R  Q- {1 N
 Charlottetown       2.9%      98,000      98,000        0.0%& u4 l" ~- F% A! e, J. {
 -------------------------------------------------------------& T8 v! Y. j$ D) _$ g7 o" G
 Moncton             4.9%           -           -         N/A8 F4 I$ s$ }. G. O( P/ E
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 % _) S  H' @' B; I    Saint John           N/A           -           -         N/A% C& s* T$ O+ z! _4 A
 -------------------------------------------------------------8 x- p) i' Y. W
 St. John's         -0.8%     146,333     145,667        0.5%: h. k1 X, u0 F- I4 x: X1 k* d3 `/ b$ f
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 + J% ^1 A1 O# j. J    Atlantic            1.3%     128,778     115,556       11.4%' f0 U. y. U! s" m- U6 v1 n
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 . U) U5 m- m. e+ N1 N    Montreal            1.6%     193,190     188,016        2.8%$ F1 O% P5 M5 N0 d+ Y$ n; F
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 8 }6 J9 w! a# I: p    Ottawa              4.5%     181,083     172,250        5.1%
 - W# Z1 U) z7 j# c4 {8 k4 l    -------------------------------------------------------------& D3 e- z/ p4 W2 `* {) C
 Toronto             1.4%     252,088     242,918        3.8%& y# {" P6 H; k' O1 M, `
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 ( C+ t+ Q' `% U  [5 s0 K    Winnipeg           12.0%     105,648      96,008       10.0%
 " ?: o% l: O  d' M  |- i    -------------------------------------------------------------1 Y" }9 f) `3 n& X1 _. Z
 Saskatchewan        9.7%     106,250     101,000        5.2%
 * H+ @) U# h: L8 ^  f0 \$ @    -------------------------------------------------------------
 ( V7 v  d3 @1 y' j( K1 i$ v7 x    Calgary            53.5%     245,844     153,867       59.8%. F+ i8 M7 |  d* I4 X  D( y4 T
 -------------------------------------------------------------% q% l* k  I) V% s' ~( ~$ u
 Edmonton           53.1%     200,433     131,500       52.4%
 + K1 A% G& |% {    -------------------------------------------------------------
 " G% e# j8 c  [9 t; `8 N9 i/ E    Vancouver          13.8%     366,250     323,250       13.3%
 5 P: u; Q4 Q/ ]. \! r, s7 U- i$ D  b    -------------------------------------------------------------0 a# y" C8 C7 I* T2 P
 Victoria            3.1%     229,000     220,000        4.1%' g. A* _/ i8 k3 {+ L3 K  B
 -------------------------------------------------------------! `1 ]+ Q/ ]$ s+ j, e- _
 National           13.2%     211,562     185,296       14.2%) }- ]; F6 m) X7 T' D# C
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 , X* e- K) x  {) Y3 `+ w    >>9 i% p  i1 _" F# A# z$ c1 @" q4 x' K
 + r  `4 I  w' [& I
 Average house prices are based on an average of all sub-markets examined$ A  u8 r% B6 i3 b8 O6 E
 in the area, except for the smaller markets of Charlottetown, Moncton, Saint+ Y) o6 b; j5 D' g+ ^% I" ?
 John and Victoria.
 5 ?3 F3 S, I3 `# \7 k$ B: x
 $ ~2 S3 C8 C7 K0 W+ @    The Royal LePage Survey of Canadian House Prices is the largest, most
 , Q! s3 p1 F$ [" m7 icomprehensive study of its kind in Canada, with information on seven types of) A+ j3 v2 t+ K
 housing in over 250 neighbourhoods from coast to coast. This release" P1 w# {, B8 p  \# Q
 references an abbreviated version of the survey, which highlights house price! n* Z+ P0 g* v7 F
 trends for the three most common types of housing in Canada in 80 communities
 5 c. A) w# e. y$ K) |across the country. A complete database of past and present surveys is6 v7 d& w9 _0 z& t  j& J, s! v
 available on the Royal LePage Web site at www.royallepage.ca, and current4 @  D3 x! V2 o4 Q7 d: Z/ h( j
 figures will be updated following the end of the third quarter. A printable
 + z6 U- i$ F, o1 qversion of the third quarter 2006 survey will be available online on$ A; t) G$ |4 Q! q
 November 15, 2006.7 E% S- V. m) z" I, P3 D% y
 Housing values in the Royal LePage Survey are Royal LePage opinions of/ C: B! u2 y1 E
 fair market value in each location, based on local data and market knowledge' k8 B& e, v8 b, q$ D# D
 provided by Royal LePage residential real estate experts. Historical data is
 ; N& V9 M. P# [8 E: _, u+ wavailable for some areas back to the early 1970s.
 | 
 |