| 
  鲜花(0 )   鸡蛋(0 ) | 
 
| Canada's housing market both vigorous and stable # Y; N$ c# _' { 4 a" e9 [9 n7 s
 - Country's market poised to show growth throughout 2006 -3 M7 X8 O! \) i  ~3 R
 0 D; F1 C9 T1 Z; l7 }9 F6 T
 TORONTO, Sept. 28 /CNW/ - For most of Canada, the housing market
 & Y/ h  E$ s7 g6 y& a: dexhibited moderate price increases and stable unit sales during the third( b' _% P* z; M( r/ k( y: a
 quarter. Wide regional variances continued to be the dominant characteristic  Y# I9 a, u7 S1 X+ e3 h
 in the market, exemplified by frenzied levels of activity and double digit  k" M! M# n% v9 p7 u+ h
 price gains observed in the energy and commodity rich Western provinces, and. _9 B9 m6 H  ?0 R* M; T% b9 h& |
 more reasonable sales volumes and moderate price appreciation in Ontario,& Z; L3 B6 X3 c9 t
 Quebec and Atlantic Canada, according to a report released today by Royal9 O/ \$ {8 N- P! o+ P# R+ `8 W
 LePage Real Estate Services.( S$ n3 ?3 U) R# N0 B
 . L3 ^: m; g" S# K. _
 Nationally, market trends established through the first three quarters
 3 v5 a9 Q5 d1 V6 mare forecast to continue for the remainder of the year. Robust economic- I. l* |, x9 W: _+ x
 conditions, low unemployment rates, modestly growing salaries and wages, and
 ' l0 s) x! H6 t  l/ X# t, _: y7 Isound consumer confidence contributed to the overall strength of the
 : p: H; l/ V. X; m& W0 dresidential real estate sector.
 8 v7 F+ j! K4 o$ o4 z$ Y, S4 b8 e+ |9 c+ r
 Of the housing types surveyed, the highest average price appreciation
 - ?# m+ A6 f5 Koccurred in detached bungalows, which rose to $300,365 (+16.3%)
 ! P) P+ |3 z$ eyear-over-year, followed by standard condominiums, which rose to $211,562$ w7 t5 F$ u- Q
 (+14.2%), and standard two-storey properties, which increased to $365,380# Q+ q1 n" r$ `; F) k+ T. A
 (+13.2%).; u; n6 ]7 x1 m5 `" }: c
 
 q6 w% z+ X' L0 _' j; M    "Canada's sturdy housing market continued to demonstrate steady growth6 T% \7 Y" w1 T2 k" V! c; A
 during the third quarter. For all but the west, we have moved on from the$ c7 N, a8 ]) s$ _+ I* C* t
 frenzied expansion that characterized the first half of this decade, and are5 g2 b: N' p% S; ]) j3 X
 poised to show continued growth at a more moderate pace," said Phil Soper,* y' T* H+ u+ X3 b) x! f
 president and chief executive officer, Royal LePage Real Estate Services.
 2 g7 `4 H2 M& V! Z"Gone is the sellers' market that we have lived with for some years. We
 r) l1 l0 e( e, q/ e3 e! U) h  rwelcome the more reliable conditions that are characteristic of a healthy0 d4 d. F1 q' M6 J& l! \! j
 balanced market."
 ( P* }6 \. q+ y. b% |  y7 w/ P2 r9 J: n: |) p
 Despite the double-digit rise in average national house prices,
 4 r+ W. L" t" Q; N9 ~. hconsiderable regional variances were exhibited again this quarter. The shift+ I3 v) c- K3 l$ _
 to balanced market conditions, which began in late 2005, has continued  @1 C4 l# Z7 K8 p6 p) O% N& |( Z  s# _
 throughout most of the Central and Eastern regions of the country. In the core
 - e7 V8 |/ E" R4 penergy producing western provinces, the combination of very high in-migration,) E* f/ S4 {: O. e- s' a+ g  k) @# _, G
 manageable affordability, and a shortage of inventory has driven record, N3 ?- e5 D2 N3 V4 B: S5 b4 X' M
 breaking price appreciations., b  u& q. J1 v: @# Q4 V
 p' Q( g  t9 j% r5 H" Q
 Echoing the second quarter and supported by Alberta's rapidly expanding2 _  y  b% Y' A, M
 economy, Calgary and Edmonton led the charge of Canadian cities with the  T4 o0 y5 S! j1 D
 largest house price appreciation in all housing types surveyed.1 z! l( _# i% ?& S
 9 U9 p" l0 \! i
 In Ottawa and Toronto, growth remained steady, supported by solid
 . q) V$ r; F  _* A5 Veconomic fundamentals, an increase in available inventory and strong consumer4 \) j1 Y) z5 m
 confidence. While the pace of price appreciation in Ontario leveled off
 $ j0 x; i5 l3 P3 a0 wslightly, the province's real estate market remains poised for modest growth.
 . G3 b) y: {  A( i# j1 R$ UIn Atlantic Canada, new housing and condominium construction offered buyers" \( K9 r- \- w( q% z. G
 greater selection at more competitive prices, resulting in a slower rate of) F" [& T2 h9 A
 price appreciation when compared with 2005." d3 ^2 G8 _( q. s! _5 j0 ]
 M) z% ?. O$ t: T/ c$ v
 While the pace of growth in Canada has slowed, the domestic housing3 `% r+ |  W5 V
 market is expected to outperform the American market. The economic and
 " j. Z1 x+ Z- X$ x# B" c1 \, Zfinancial fundamentals driving the residential real estate sector in Canada
 ( r4 Z3 k% t8 _are markedly different than those found in the United States.
 7 i0 I' K# B( C+ v. l
 7 m6 C  s1 ], ~    Added Soper: "Canada's housing market is likely to outperform the3 {+ q$ c" }5 r
 American market through 2007. A number of factors are working in Canada's
 ' ?) j  M6 I  v1 c( |4 D' ffavour, including healthy personal and governmental debt levels, the
 # o# L4 W3 ~: e( M& o2 C4 ^relatively modest rise in interest rates in our country, and general
 : O- C0 Q& R6 f& L3 Z* h4 [4 S  Vaffordability in our major cities. In addition, Americans are now seeing the6 n0 r/ |. M5 O& ]! O$ r
 downside of a tax system that encourages maximum homeowner leverage, and; ?. m2 T9 J. a: j4 Y
 aggressive financial products such as zero- and negative-amortization
 5 v4 @# P0 ]: E8 [* @5 X, w8 nmortgages that work only in a high price growth environment."
 $ {+ S  G. C9 K+ @3 `4 t' }' S1 }- n6 z, @$ J2 M9 U
 <<" ~( x7 a9 o5 l( h6 B6 z
 REGIONAL SUMMARIES3 j/ |% Z0 ]4 p1 L
 >>
 * k5 D' w7 X. n3 u0 _
 . x8 J, l3 D' K* b8 s    Balanced conditions continued to characterize the housing market in. v$ G2 C4 S' |( g1 S& h
 Halifax, as significantly higher inventory levels helped to moderate the rate/ T+ m# [5 l+ q3 B* ~, G/ G
 of price appreciation. Buyers were increasingly choosy, taking more time* E# z& z, K1 q$ x! v1 Y
 looking for newer, low-maintenance properties that were not in need of9 u8 w& `9 P( S/ G. O8 B
 renovations.3 n( D  I4 x6 }6 z
 3 X' F6 b0 B' e# w0 V
 The housing market in Moncton remained healthy and strong as a slight# M" m0 j( ~( q4 I  b
 increase in inventory helped to moderate the rate of price appreciation8 |. x3 [' Q0 f0 {% K4 s
 compared to the same period in 2005. Activity was brisk throughout August and
 k& l8 Z9 a7 ~; a9 D9 u; SSeptember and is expected to remain this way through the fourth quarter.
 3 l8 p. \. s: c+ X- x6 L" d8 e, O1 n3 ~* J" n( O/ v  k) j5 D( k3 h
 The housing market in Saint John underwent its traditional summer
 7 `' j5 ]* ~) sslowdown in the third quarter, with activity picking up towards the end of the
 $ i1 W. a" h* J" b$ K2 }quarter. The local economy continued to thrive, as construction on a new
 % Z5 h* V% O1 l0 e600,000 square-foot shopping area has begun, bringing several new box stores
 . T' l5 _% o2 i9 [, Y3 Hto the area. Buyers have begun seeking less expensive fixtures for their homes# ?2 H- i$ X) ?. S# w5 x( m
 and are instead opting for more affordable housing options.6 i( P9 q! N. ], k6 E+ G' {1 ^
 & z8 o% P  D: {) q8 l. z. L
 In Charlottetown, the housing market started to move towards balanced0 t! x& X5 P3 ~8 B3 P9 E" q
 conditions, as some sellers had to begin to lower the asking prices on their) C& X  L! `! z8 J1 x0 d
 homes to make them more competitive. Activity from out-of-town and US buyers
 4 b& h$ M1 A2 W) A3 ~was down slightly compared to 2005, likely attributable to the strong Canadian8 P6 l! V+ x- m8 a7 |" {
 dollar. Inventory levels began to creep up in the third quarter, providing# ~* `6 Q2 ?& \3 u6 H7 P" a
 buyers with more options when looking for a home.
 2 f/ Z: ~+ v+ {  F+ i# g: w& q0 O- P0 Y" A% y- h) x
 Activity in St. John's slowed slightly in the third quarter, particularly" J8 h/ P2 z3 y6 |& \% L% ]7 h: R$ R
 among higher-priced properties, where there was a slight over-supply of homes# N( Q; c' s3 e
 priced over $200,000. Listing periods have increased when compared with 2005,# n/ S- R" F. d" R
 as some of the pent-up demand that had characterized the market over the last
 % R2 N; @% t. P$ c2 X( \1 \4 ffew years has been satisfied, resulting in more normal, balanced conditions.
 . Y5 h% \$ X3 j& ?! F; `- V- a; i0 A! P
 Montreal's housing market recorded modest increases in average house, U5 L1 x" f3 w( L  \! {
 prices, due to a slight seasonal slowdown in the third quarter as inventory0 c4 P( q. ~6 R: M0 e
 levels rose. Part of this can be attributed to the fact that many renting
 + r# o. I) M2 W- G0 Bfirst-time buyers were motivated to close on the purchase of a home by July 1,  S, y3 @6 [* I0 ^- u1 n# n9 P% a
 when rental leases expire in Quebec. Once this date has passed some of the
 * j3 d, |/ E# ]4 \pressure is taken off the market, allowing buyers to visit more homes before
 7 V% J6 U4 u8 X1 imaking a purchase.
 ( I* H- _5 T) H: ~# z
 8 {5 P. O9 Q. W2 P  \0 Y    Ottawa held its position as one of the country's most stable housing
 . E* s4 c( U) i' k. s0 z" Imarkets in the third quarter, reinforced by a vibrant local economy and strong3 ~" \2 Y% ~* J( S9 y  J' }4 L
 confidence, resulting in modest increases in average house prices. The city4 R4 r: ~$ S: v1 M3 {4 k
 centre remained a bright spot in Ottawa, with homes in this area attracting2 O: K" z6 F  M( g
 attention due to their convenient location and proximity to downtown7 \* H5 a& O: t) a" ~* |# d# Y
 amenities.
 / ~3 I& h( ^: C* @" j+ i; F, i! L: n: D3 V' W% d
 The housing market in Toronto sustained healthy activity levels
 : b; O  Z6 `, v% b/ H  w- N8 |throughout the third quarter, as a strong economy helped to maintain demand
 & c& l! ^" P8 Dacross the city, causing average house prices to rise moderately. Toronto has: [# @  C# `! Z# ^  I
 continued to experience modest growth in average house prices, and has been. M+ o# u9 E8 Z: Z( i: q9 B; \, v! q
 driven primarily by purchasers who are buying homes as their principle
 * y$ M, @  R  b8 S( l- h/ eresidence, rather than for investment.
 # }& D, k4 b( r3 e0 P' Y
 6 J) v) U* t7 C5 J' x" x( c    The vibrant Winnipeg housing market continued to show its strength as
 ) c. P0 ~( O; E! Chouse prices rose during the third quarter. The booming local economy resulted
 1 G/ ~% \. W2 O0 y9 Din a historically low unemployment rate, helping to bolster consumer& l) r  Y0 {6 N, M$ J4 V) |. F
 confidence and Winnipeg's ranking as the city with the lowest capitalization
 9 ~# f2 X# G& z* m9 L+ Yrate among the country's larger cities - helped to encourage buyers to enter- G" y+ q5 n: F  b+ Z1 R# w
 the market.
 $ k. O3 k& F3 K2 C
 3 F9 e; s* F0 H! H3 y    In Regina, the market experienced a slight seasonal slowdown through
 ; |, D8 Q3 I8 W) T) o- SJuly, as there were fewer purchasers in the market due to summer vacations. In& g; S, U# U! v8 j
 August, activity resumed to the busy pace previously seen in the spring
 / L& F$ i& L+ f. z0 }( Omonths, as the influx of purchasers made it more difficult to find a home due" q3 I* T- \1 y0 n+ Q9 b7 |( l
 to the shortage of available inventory.& ]+ U6 G' L! C  g) d
 
 + M- e- c9 G& s' B. r- R    Activity in Saskatoon remained brisk as the market maintained its
 & j* [) o( b0 r& dmomentum from the busy spring sales period. The economy in Saskatoon remains
 0 v0 w1 D6 ]) S" Uvibrant, as employment opportunities are abundant with many businesses
 ' v: \- Y: k- B& H3 G, \struggling to make hires and having to recruit outside the province.
 ; O/ n& a0 j) H; T5 m) s6 I" R
 3 i% K9 X/ J/ q) U/ q    Calgary's housing market recorded blazing average house price increases
 ; ]! O1 e* N, r) c0 Y8 t; w, Uin the third quarter, in all surveyed categories. The burgeoning economy, low
 9 b' n  ^# K$ H: v9 c  Vunemployment rates and low inventory levels remained the leading factors that
 e' i& p3 V% j: a* k. ^* Bpressured Calgary's house prices upwards. However, regardless of the soaring/ [5 f0 p6 I9 J, H0 r
 prices that characterized the market - even during the typically slower summer; c7 d. ?6 v6 o  G( z0 Y- o4 F
 season - it is expected that activity will become slightly more balanced, as+ t, j; x0 f; t- `0 z; \
 buyers are becoming more reluctant to participate in the frenetic activity.9 K/ g6 U/ D5 U/ y! K# Y: `3 o$ k4 v
 
 5 F, ^# v7 W4 z. K0 Z6 a( y. g' A    Edmonton's booming local economy continued to thrive in the third quarter3 s; E$ v) P, x1 {( y2 ~
 as activity in the oil sands north of the city continued to flourish. Edmonton* ]' N# q5 A/ Q0 z" d* {
 remained the hub of activity for those coming to work in the oil industry,
 & f( i2 c# r2 I: pmaintaining tight inventory levels across the city, resulting in prices
 # D8 H3 T) u1 K2 R) s% F# ?7 q; vincreasing at record levels. However, as inventory levels continued to improve# ^% e' \/ \3 E: R; D
 in the third quarter the rate of price appreciation should moderate slightly/ `" C5 `7 }# Q5 F4 u, s! B" q
 towards the end of 2006.    ! l) T" i* r! q% X! v4 O- @
 " [( U" i* t6 C  d# U
 While Vancouver has seen a slight reprieve from the severe shortage of
 : i/ ^* U' ^$ n& yinventory that had previously characterized the market, supply is still unable3 g3 K7 O( J- J  ?: z% c
 to meet demand, driving house prices upwards. Vancouver has a very diverse
 ! ]: c" |8 m% W8 ?; D. v7 |group of active buyers - from first-time home buyers to baby-boomers to
 ) W5 r; n6 Q/ D, oforeign investors - all of whom fuel the demand for houses, placing added
 ; m0 T2 |$ e7 [! O2 W8 K% kpressure on tight inventory levels.
 . Q) W+ V% U! t- z8 I* @4 _# U1 a
 Victoria's market is vibrant and supported by strong economic" e( O0 ?7 I  U- m. o
 fundamentals, fuelled by a booming tech sector and a migration of young people
 % ]& W+ V% S- E) Z4 linto the city that has continued to support the area's house price increases;
 3 E  a! T, m- Y: z7 `1 }0 ~2 F* Swhile increased inventory levels have afforded buyers more time when searching
 2 H' |; b3 C  D3 |4 s1 C: {for a home, helping to normalize the market's pace.
 ' Y# |! ~! @; Z1 m
 * F9 l) b; E: Z' J6 V    <<: H1 c5 d5 L, a
 Survey of Canadian Average House Prices in the Third Quarter 20065 o/ i+ w" V$ ]7 r
 6 c- g# p, {, [' U
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------, d) O) t$ O# A) [$ o
 Detached Bungalows                Standard Two Storey  `) Z& Q+ c' H1 m
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6 J: [0 F% g/ Y                     2006 Q3     2005 Q3    Bungalow     2006 Q3     2005 Q3
 ! Z/ \6 M2 E  ~( K- Z1 b4 T) `; y    Market           Average     Average    % Change     Average     Average
 * u* H% z2 Y' @, x- i    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 % `1 H* k8 w1 m) K3 B' ~3 r    Halifax          186,333     173,333        7.5%     198,667     199,000' |- |1 M( c) B( y, l: j1 X
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 # J% j' j5 i4 ]( {* x3 n% Y    Charlottetown    145,000     141,000        2.8%     175,000     170,000
 * T) c. o0 T+ c& e  h" u( ^+ g    -------------------------------------------------------------------------8 Y  ^% L7 e3 K. _4 ?3 ~  Q' v7 |
 Moncton          135,000     127,000        6.3%     129,000     123,000
 4 v: Y0 A. x0 `( p    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 % L2 b% k( h7 K    Saint John       141,200     142,900       -1.2%           -           -: X' R: s) C( f8 W# F3 O8 I
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 % w$ n( w) o: j7 s4 w% O+ u* L( E    St. John's       143,667     142,667        0.7%     200,667     202,333/ M$ B, N# \: k
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------% O% ~# X8 B/ b, F5 \
 Atlantic         150,240     145,380        3.3%     175,833     173,583  L' V9 h5 p" Z, {% F8 a6 M
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------$ }- ~( n; [) @3 R( N
 Montreal         213,691     203,500        5.0%     321,141     316,185- ?9 H# E3 m8 w/ M" @
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 - L9 G1 g" j0 @6 r- F8 X4 S# h    Ottawa           290,083     278,417        4.2%     285,667     273,250
 2 X% x: l3 h/ B' I2 ?    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ; a8 r) F! B3 m5 \" X: e7 Z    Toronto          373,368     355,882        4.9%     481,523     474,766
 1 ^, \! X/ F2 `& S    -------------------------------------------------------------------------( `( y0 x; K  G
 Winnipeg         181,579     159,860       13.6%     202,337     180,707
 E, D2 Y0 t/ p' A* u6 T; k    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 , m8 y8 u& H& o& `3 J$ Y1 p& _) R    Saskatchewan     170,667     156,083        9.3%     182,600     166,500
 : r* c, |6 ~! I7 V$ ^/ `1 z    -------------------------------------------------------------------------+ B3 V0 }0 K+ t# f/ r  d1 ~* D$ N
 Calgary          395,067     252,411       56.5%     405,778     264,389' e7 j9 g: X; l  ?8 E
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7 ]9 f7 y$ v2 `( d3 {; e    Edmonton         286,857     194,857       47.2%     316,429     206,714& l. C3 g9 t" i) d# Z
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ) [  X5 T, a1 p5 N    Vancouver        704,250     601,000       17.2%     794,000     697,500
 , d& Q1 Z' T) L/ P1 M    -------------------------------------------------------------------------$ q7 M3 u8 U& S
 Victoria         375,000     348,000        7.8%     403,000     391,000
 # u3 |# v1 i7 E/ I7 W* }, |    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 . z$ M# b/ Q0 d$ T; {1 Z    National         300,365     258,202       16.3%     365,380     322,8608 z& X3 m% f/ P& F
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------/ O: w5 H- t  G/ }  a9 a: ^
 5 a9 O$ V4 r' h
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 8 `1 }0 q2 r/ @7 d6 i0 I& {                               Standard Condominium
 ; w% x8 _) |' P! b9 A' l3 k    -------------------------------------------------------------
 3 E8 A6 L; ]8 ~8 X0 W# i                    2-Storey     2006 Q3     2005 Q3       Condo
 ! ?% ?/ K( ^  J" N( _. \; m: }" [    Market          % Change     Average     Average    % Change) n- p4 E) C  @& g) T% I0 J
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 % k* {6 C8 \% g- z4 m6 g    Halifax            -0.2%     142,000     103,000       37.9%, |2 N# m6 t3 X0 ?8 r/ m
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 ) s4 Q1 _! t. I7 c    Charlottetown       2.9%      98,000      98,000        0.0%) U; F1 t$ q' n* I9 ?9 [
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 " c; f9 h' X7 A6 o/ J    Moncton             4.9%           -           -         N/A9 F! F' e1 ]' R7 {3 D
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 + I7 U) S! M1 ~" y    Saint John           N/A           -           -         N/A' r3 y9 O' ?% x$ a$ H4 P3 S5 K
 -------------------------------------------------------------' ]: |  M' I1 P6 l1 W+ x
 St. John's         -0.8%     146,333     145,667        0.5%
 * D& G4 F& |% j0 B* W1 m" _8 g    -------------------------------------------------------------
 9 Y0 R  G" X0 L+ j6 ^3 j    Atlantic            1.3%     128,778     115,556       11.4%. J; W' P6 y: I( p! n! }. L8 v
 -------------------------------------------------------------- t8 R. g1 T9 D  j1 Q
 Montreal            1.6%     193,190     188,016        2.8%
 0 M2 ~; _4 t3 ~+ R7 }5 U    -------------------------------------------------------------
 - h% M$ R8 u8 W  R* `    Ottawa              4.5%     181,083     172,250        5.1%
 8 J# w/ O1 L, }+ N' v) y! h    -------------------------------------------------------------2 G) Y5 t( I6 d4 e* _  ~, Q
 Toronto             1.4%     252,088     242,918        3.8%. F6 X+ C) ]9 _$ t" q
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 ! }9 l! S, E* Q0 L, E$ E4 h6 H    Winnipeg           12.0%     105,648      96,008       10.0%( O9 j& P9 x4 A: p+ O* `
 -------------------------------------------------------------5 p9 Q8 \' q. I4 E
 Saskatchewan        9.7%     106,250     101,000        5.2%) ^1 B) ?% f6 Z1 X! i* d) d. x0 u5 K
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 $ x* _$ J5 N0 p& L# ^    Calgary            53.5%     245,844     153,867       59.8%  l, B0 B: F( t$ R: J% f5 z( r
 -------------------------------------------------------------  V  I( u) H7 R$ S$ ~. v
 Edmonton           53.1%     200,433     131,500       52.4%
 7 e3 y- B8 E! ^3 h6 @    -------------------------------------------------------------
 : ?2 ^# C3 ], L3 X: |    Vancouver          13.8%     366,250     323,250       13.3%
 ) j: D; l$ B) Z    -------------------------------------------------------------
 : ?7 s( f4 M4 v. ]9 Y4 j( \    Victoria            3.1%     229,000     220,000        4.1%& z. c4 N: h* P2 b/ U
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 , e7 s$ O- ^6 F4 h    National           13.2%     211,562     185,296       14.2%
 2 m0 J) n5 k$ Y( u" W- I! ]) F    -------------------------------------------------------------( |$ C% I/ ^; s, y9 O$ G2 i& l
 >>
 : a5 s7 `5 Q( L! _- l" _1 I  W. Z% S+ R" \. c! E: V$ W
 Average house prices are based on an average of all sub-markets examined4 i+ ?* C* i. T; C5 Y
 in the area, except for the smaller markets of Charlottetown, Moncton, Saint
 ; E# `9 v. c. AJohn and Victoria.3 w& O4 m: o* ~$ ]/ X
 
 ( M' r" x" d+ P+ F/ A    The Royal LePage Survey of Canadian House Prices is the largest, most4 a' X0 @: w4 l; ?6 W- Y
 comprehensive study of its kind in Canada, with information on seven types of7 A. t) p; |0 x. w6 E0 M
 housing in over 250 neighbourhoods from coast to coast. This release4 j9 G9 m2 v  h; {* o
 references an abbreviated version of the survey, which highlights house price( K) K. u! _  U9 o+ J
 trends for the three most common types of housing in Canada in 80 communities
 ) Z. b* k" |( I  f3 Racross the country. A complete database of past and present surveys is
 : Z/ e! _) C5 y1 D6 [available on the Royal LePage Web site at www.royallepage.ca, and current
 ; |6 H1 g; Q; j3 }- Cfigures will be updated following the end of the third quarter. A printable  k4 R1 E( P5 L% R9 S5 e
 version of the third quarter 2006 survey will be available online on1 }* g7 t# |: @) v8 y4 d! c7 e
 November 15, 2006.' I2 v$ W$ z! g  w9 W4 q% O
 Housing values in the Royal LePage Survey are Royal LePage opinions of
 g* c0 T/ h7 U' u8 C) V" wfair market value in each location, based on local data and market knowledge' A0 k, |: _( W# c! |* E
 provided by Royal LePage residential real estate experts. Historical data is, q& S9 i/ W& o8 t/ C
 available for some areas back to the early 1970s.
 | 
 |