| 
  鲜花(0 )   鸡蛋(0 ) | 
 
| Canada's housing market both vigorous and stable 2 W; s/ g5 l5 h5 O/ U6 M
 ; M. \6 O7 @9 J1 T0 t- Country's market poised to show growth throughout 2006 -
 2 g* j& J- W- w" L0 T: y# i! y( q; H9 n% T- K$ K  q. o
 TORONTO, Sept. 28 /CNW/ - For most of Canada, the housing market$ U4 O0 K* z( }3 W
 exhibited moderate price increases and stable unit sales during the third9 W( A4 m. R  m9 [8 o, Q" F* w2 |
 quarter. Wide regional variances continued to be the dominant characteristic
 0 z6 C0 i/ x- Rin the market, exemplified by frenzied levels of activity and double digit
 : Z6 d) A6 [, z* \  v4 N# K& zprice gains observed in the energy and commodity rich Western provinces, and  O7 f' @, \, ^$ w. ^
 more reasonable sales volumes and moderate price appreciation in Ontario,- r: N7 G! t: c6 U3 y' N
 Quebec and Atlantic Canada, according to a report released today by Royal
 ) F' L8 q/ w2 q2 WLePage Real Estate Services.
 * C5 s( B" B. T9 |0 U1 [8 S5 s/ \) T8 z  u9 J2 {
 Nationally, market trends established through the first three quarters
 ; @( J6 i1 [' qare forecast to continue for the remainder of the year. Robust economic# }& M( y! g8 {6 |. `* C
 conditions, low unemployment rates, modestly growing salaries and wages, and6 w( P$ [# `( i  w
 sound consumer confidence contributed to the overall strength of the
 J. w2 I, u  }% s& C0 R' yresidential real estate sector.
 8 B3 g$ `- `8 ]0 T$ _, M! T& h' [4 A( u! Y5 \2 M, I
 Of the housing types surveyed, the highest average price appreciation
 & A6 n* g  R, n% c* w  |occurred in detached bungalows, which rose to $300,365 (+16.3%)& O. T7 m2 V1 v" A8 J  [
 year-over-year, followed by standard condominiums, which rose to $211,562
 . @, @; T" t- L& K2 G(+14.2%), and standard two-storey properties, which increased to $365,380
 : g  q) _: J0 n% ]2 J: N4 x5 S(+13.2%).! d* x) v! @7 K/ t$ G5 n. ?& G
 
 ' M* N' M: B( D# H9 i    "Canada's sturdy housing market continued to demonstrate steady growth
 ; t: u7 C  e- J" uduring the third quarter. For all but the west, we have moved on from the) E$ G4 ~$ q8 W
 frenzied expansion that characterized the first half of this decade, and are2 i; T. B4 Z& q
 poised to show continued growth at a more moderate pace," said Phil Soper,$ L+ R) Z* \& t# E0 g# o
 president and chief executive officer, Royal LePage Real Estate Services.$ j8 e3 d5 F' t+ s6 p& s4 g
 "Gone is the sellers' market that we have lived with for some years. We3 K" X0 L1 a% e* d( j
 welcome the more reliable conditions that are characteristic of a healthy
 7 r/ |1 n2 H# l0 L( P2 e" vbalanced market."6 B/ z+ c8 u7 h& K1 Q
 
 4 X& D2 ~8 i1 Q  M2 ]& Y    Despite the double-digit rise in average national house prices,! W* y- X3 Y2 j
 considerable regional variances were exhibited again this quarter. The shift5 q* q5 Y' z# l% ^7 E3 N! a
 to balanced market conditions, which began in late 2005, has continued: z1 H. h4 Z# {0 t* v0 B2 ~4 W8 c' _: |
 throughout most of the Central and Eastern regions of the country. In the core9 X0 j; u. ]- V# j: T. d
 energy producing western provinces, the combination of very high in-migration,
 . I0 F" p& w2 t# q4 cmanageable affordability, and a shortage of inventory has driven record  I! o$ A9 r6 C0 M
 breaking price appreciations.
 ! @) E: C1 b1 @: D& G; @
 . H6 \$ T. Y* t6 o    Echoing the second quarter and supported by Alberta's rapidly expanding
 % }8 H9 D" ]. ~) Veconomy, Calgary and Edmonton led the charge of Canadian cities with the
 * `9 i- b7 o1 L' {. o, a- Flargest house price appreciation in all housing types surveyed.
 : N5 a4 j1 t; S. F5 c1 g0 E5 z2 H; B6 K% x" `0 W( @  o- R
 In Ottawa and Toronto, growth remained steady, supported by solid
 : o3 W6 O: B& f8 L9 G  `6 reconomic fundamentals, an increase in available inventory and strong consumer
 ( g, b, d3 r; F7 _& v' econfidence. While the pace of price appreciation in Ontario leveled off; B! o  G/ s4 [& N& i. ?+ a
 slightly, the province's real estate market remains poised for modest growth.' R+ L3 O5 L, f* R- Z
 In Atlantic Canada, new housing and condominium construction offered buyers
 7 Q4 {2 I/ M2 \  @" `, {4 |greater selection at more competitive prices, resulting in a slower rate of) ?1 O1 ?9 U% Y& C, N2 e
 price appreciation when compared with 2005.
 ! q; |( @$ h! E; W4 R" k8 X! e1 D4 \$ d
 While the pace of growth in Canada has slowed, the domestic housing' |  t& x7 K2 R6 r% W1 S* U1 q
 market is expected to outperform the American market. The economic and
 % m0 M( V; y' u# xfinancial fundamentals driving the residential real estate sector in Canada# u; g& U4 J; [+ E  v
 are markedly different than those found in the United States.
 2 a9 M( ?& X1 O8 i- x6 j& N7 _  c! y# @8 _9 c+ V1 {$ ~* f
 Added Soper: "Canada's housing market is likely to outperform the
 . U9 R% d- y% E# F7 pAmerican market through 2007. A number of factors are working in Canada's/ E8 Y5 M$ k2 B2 H% `* i
 favour, including healthy personal and governmental debt levels, the
 / @+ t7 A6 w2 N! |& Xrelatively modest rise in interest rates in our country, and general+ n8 t3 b% s$ `# n3 I' I4 t* n
 affordability in our major cities. In addition, Americans are now seeing the
 $ N+ K6 d1 h; |& N' Kdownside of a tax system that encourages maximum homeowner leverage, and
 2 Y3 j5 G4 S" K& Y( iaggressive financial products such as zero- and negative-amortization$ A. W, R' a; h
 mortgages that work only in a high price growth environment."
 ! w* Q- _& v1 y/ H8 @5 j5 e
 ( o7 v; m* ~4 Z4 g- ~* |! i, G    <<5 S; E+ k+ M! V8 q
 REGIONAL SUMMARIES' Y2 y& }( I7 f: N& `
 >># j, p1 @2 w9 U6 G/ m" W0 b# f
 
 % [2 W5 h0 O" t. r" j: E0 u    Balanced conditions continued to characterize the housing market in3 y( w2 l# G3 j0 M; Q) G' X
 Halifax, as significantly higher inventory levels helped to moderate the rate
 % |6 k' C9 Q& z) Cof price appreciation. Buyers were increasingly choosy, taking more time" [/ K2 a# \5 u
 looking for newer, low-maintenance properties that were not in need of4 f+ }8 l# U7 V) Y' a. G, H9 \' W, b
 renovations.9 K# v0 X  v4 _6 t" M0 D( I) L0 m: I
 
 / y4 U* }% n4 D4 b: m* K" m    The housing market in Moncton remained healthy and strong as a slight" [$ p: X& ~1 R
 increase in inventory helped to moderate the rate of price appreciation: P* Q! i, u( W; f' b: C( Q( r
 compared to the same period in 2005. Activity was brisk throughout August and
 + L# o  c" r8 X6 CSeptember and is expected to remain this way through the fourth quarter.4 Z# c+ V$ J0 }4 p
 + H, r* S& r1 Q9 x
 The housing market in Saint John underwent its traditional summer4 T" r" m4 c) I0 g( B. ~
 slowdown in the third quarter, with activity picking up towards the end of the  W# H2 H! L0 g, S' u- ~" P1 ~, e
 quarter. The local economy continued to thrive, as construction on a new" [; z" V- n8 D2 m
 600,000 square-foot shopping area has begun, bringing several new box stores" d0 O5 \' s6 u9 d' F7 a% V& a
 to the area. Buyers have begun seeking less expensive fixtures for their homes
 ; `- b# F8 t$ t% S+ J, _/ V/ C: P2 {and are instead opting for more affordable housing options.5 @; V. x1 G& r- @
 
 5 u9 w7 G  _1 T3 b* j3 U, C* y    In Charlottetown, the housing market started to move towards balanced5 a/ h  {7 M0 m6 Q
 conditions, as some sellers had to begin to lower the asking prices on their3 M9 F1 B& |6 h- g
 homes to make them more competitive. Activity from out-of-town and US buyers
 9 c, D& \9 ]8 @$ x* @5 \5 Mwas down slightly compared to 2005, likely attributable to the strong Canadian
 4 L, r9 y/ b$ i# s2 l$ cdollar. Inventory levels began to creep up in the third quarter, providing" ]* ~8 f; c& [
 buyers with more options when looking for a home.
 8 Y  M" f; {: c3 z3 J) M* [0 k5 ]5 Z# q( V; K# _! l
 Activity in St. John's slowed slightly in the third quarter, particularly+ Q7 y7 x* w) p. @
 among higher-priced properties, where there was a slight over-supply of homes
 3 h; W, Y! C: lpriced over $200,000. Listing periods have increased when compared with 2005,
 & Z6 r0 n4 X# u2 F" c0 \as some of the pent-up demand that had characterized the market over the last
 0 H. ^7 x% b$ J5 D# G6 k, t  Ffew years has been satisfied, resulting in more normal, balanced conditions.
 5 x- b4 ~" r+ \" m' T
 4 o6 @8 }1 ^5 p7 |    Montreal's housing market recorded modest increases in average house4 h; z1 v0 K; N! y' @
 prices, due to a slight seasonal slowdown in the third quarter as inventory
 # o' ]* M5 P( c& C4 \levels rose. Part of this can be attributed to the fact that many renting* N' w& k2 _& ^; O9 E
 first-time buyers were motivated to close on the purchase of a home by July 1,' ~; |9 U1 w. p
 when rental leases expire in Quebec. Once this date has passed some of the
 0 m1 R7 i8 Y& G6 h! J/ J: W" D+ N7 L- lpressure is taken off the market, allowing buyers to visit more homes before' r" \( p4 f( A
 making a purchase.! B! |' ^4 z$ E5 T
 / X2 h; X5 g/ k/ C
 Ottawa held its position as one of the country's most stable housing
 # m, ^& f3 n4 ]( ?/ Q7 Omarkets in the third quarter, reinforced by a vibrant local economy and strong1 ?6 i# ?6 e6 S- |. N
 confidence, resulting in modest increases in average house prices. The city
 ' R% P6 N8 [1 M9 L6 P& J1 M, ~centre remained a bright spot in Ottawa, with homes in this area attracting
 : R3 n- G7 c* H' U% O1 H' h! I. `attention due to their convenient location and proximity to downtown
 5 x# b4 U: m* g2 x% lamenities.7 L. V( K$ x1 O0 B; }6 j
 
 & Z, S. }% I. G    The housing market in Toronto sustained healthy activity levels
 ) E! h% l1 f* n! u+ C- hthroughout the third quarter, as a strong economy helped to maintain demand
 6 M8 U: U; R- B% Q" y+ Dacross the city, causing average house prices to rise moderately. Toronto has6 V7 ]# x, s+ v9 ]9 ?* }
 continued to experience modest growth in average house prices, and has been* ?. ]6 Q1 ?- @+ b' l+ C
 driven primarily by purchasers who are buying homes as their principle5 w5 E& J* x8 O
 residence, rather than for investment.$ i! }" W) e* V: z
 
 : X7 _, `6 f8 U& d  q: a& x    The vibrant Winnipeg housing market continued to show its strength as
 ! {% \* d( U7 _9 d9 Chouse prices rose during the third quarter. The booming local economy resulted
 3 S$ E5 |; O( q# min a historically low unemployment rate, helping to bolster consumer4 j5 A2 a( E) A9 x. y( a) g
 confidence and Winnipeg's ranking as the city with the lowest capitalization
 6 @, J3 A5 \% g/ hrate among the country's larger cities - helped to encourage buyers to enter
 ! U- _, A" }* F' ?+ Jthe market., E/ S+ ~" `! {5 ?5 k+ L$ Y0 c
 
 7 A$ L$ h" ]. W- Q+ T    In Regina, the market experienced a slight seasonal slowdown through: Y! y3 H+ v* `4 @) Y- Z
 July, as there were fewer purchasers in the market due to summer vacations. In0 a. I% [" y! t% x
 August, activity resumed to the busy pace previously seen in the spring
 9 `) @5 U$ ]8 G1 ~; m; fmonths, as the influx of purchasers made it more difficult to find a home due* N" |  z7 T% k1 D* j! C
 to the shortage of available inventory.
 n, [* ]* {" j7 o+ V
 . U3 H5 g% ^8 h" Y' x, r    Activity in Saskatoon remained brisk as the market maintained its+ k5 v+ ?* ]2 h8 W5 y+ A
 momentum from the busy spring sales period. The economy in Saskatoon remains5 I- A' U! I7 [' `3 I; i
 vibrant, as employment opportunities are abundant with many businesses
 ( O* L4 {- d. v6 ^struggling to make hires and having to recruit outside the province.
 8 J0 m5 S. c9 ]
 " O( w1 O* U9 p1 O! [' [6 H. f    Calgary's housing market recorded blazing average house price increases
 l3 y+ e5 `; g: E& ?9 b6 o% v3 j4 `in the third quarter, in all surveyed categories. The burgeoning economy, low; |% J: C: G1 K
 unemployment rates and low inventory levels remained the leading factors that
 & o+ Z& G4 H4 P8 v3 d5 upressured Calgary's house prices upwards. However, regardless of the soaring0 D) d) x8 o: F& ^" x7 \
 prices that characterized the market - even during the typically slower summer
 " A6 Z: W1 H+ a( V# Q8 `2 w! }3 l% _season - it is expected that activity will become slightly more balanced, as8 ^* z& F% E& h( F1 ^1 |2 f
 buyers are becoming more reluctant to participate in the frenetic activity./ V" ^' t2 H3 B# J! {& \
 
 ' e# I9 s- S& y$ J    Edmonton's booming local economy continued to thrive in the third quarter: y0 z2 ?2 f' h9 G7 I. L3 R- |
 as activity in the oil sands north of the city continued to flourish. Edmonton5 [4 h/ Z! c0 s& [' A
 remained the hub of activity for those coming to work in the oil industry,  r) N4 w" ~: E# C8 G
 maintaining tight inventory levels across the city, resulting in prices
 6 e. s' K' b: {, N, Fincreasing at record levels. However, as inventory levels continued to improve) V5 x0 M$ u0 J' t) R4 ~" D
 in the third quarter the rate of price appreciation should moderate slightly# x0 N$ u( b+ `7 J& P
 towards the end of 2006.
 % x, }2 n% {( d1 @5 o, M; t' W" Z
 8 f( V+ Y! b' aWhile Vancouver has seen a slight reprieve from the severe shortage of
 2 F! F1 O. d2 G" ]inventory that had previously characterized the market, supply is still unable. U$ ^# U7 ~6 o) A; U
 to meet demand, driving house prices upwards. Vancouver has a very diverse6 o- @7 h  t/ A* w8 {5 s
 group of active buyers - from first-time home buyers to baby-boomers to
 ) J. V6 Z0 X' m: c. i9 @foreign investors - all of whom fuel the demand for houses, placing added2 ]) j. [& K! C2 ?8 s6 x
 pressure on tight inventory levels.% ]/ V5 c2 g+ {2 z/ o# t5 h" E( X! u
 , W/ q; s  C+ {
 Victoria's market is vibrant and supported by strong economic9 l' z4 t+ t* n8 ?- u, F; r; K
 fundamentals, fuelled by a booming tech sector and a migration of young people
 ; Z+ o6 ^0 T) \into the city that has continued to support the area's house price increases;- X+ L+ ~1 o/ P: S
 while increased inventory levels have afforded buyers more time when searching) s- X- q( R0 A
 for a home, helping to normalize the market's pace.
 * l/ E7 k4 d8 z* o
 + f2 U7 i3 ?/ K) D6 i    <<
 * c! y5 N2 d9 `. O: U6 V. _" W) `! E      Survey of Canadian Average House Prices in the Third Quarter 20069 W: }- i0 x/ \
 / o" l$ K( |  Q" J  ?
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------; V1 m# b6 P! w" |2 L9 ?
 Detached Bungalows                Standard Two Storey
 ) I. t8 l" P. S1 ?* u    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 , @/ z. Q) U4 t; c$ J                     2006 Q3     2005 Q3    Bungalow     2006 Q3     2005 Q39 Q  x" v2 m' F
 Market           Average     Average    % Change     Average     Average% r# m- `  f0 y6 G. V- {
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 % R/ i- U# o6 s" K, ]4 |    Halifax          186,333     173,333        7.5%     198,667     199,000
 ( J3 _* |# i# B+ y* y7 `& {% J    -------------------------------------------------------------------------. E  Z9 H9 O  \" H/ I- ?+ D! N
 Charlottetown    145,000     141,000        2.8%     175,000     170,000% L/ u, E/ _+ }: t' l6 L4 B$ N
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------" K6 J) v, o4 ?& s
 Moncton          135,000     127,000        6.3%     129,000     123,000
 1 \9 i1 G/ ~+ q; [2 j( _$ W$ O    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8 l, c) G7 g% L3 o, }, U    Saint John       141,200     142,900       -1.2%           -           -
 3 x$ W( o4 x1 I: J    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 % y" Q2 I- K5 W- M    St. John's       143,667     142,667        0.7%     200,667     202,333
 + w& L* r( n1 I! P0 D& h, t    -------------------------------------------------------------------------- N" y  M3 E/ a
 Atlantic         150,240     145,380        3.3%     175,833     173,583* L- b  d. S8 k  ?
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------5 V, W! A& @: z  v: s! [; m( A
 Montreal         213,691     203,500        5.0%     321,141     316,185
 & E* Z9 d0 [; x4 {8 l+ z1 g    -------------------------------------------------------------------------0 U( t3 D$ m+ i4 f1 C7 \( J$ R
 Ottawa           290,083     278,417        4.2%     285,667     273,2505 \7 \+ \! ^$ ^9 \
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 # h' M9 g5 t$ _5 A& S    Toronto          373,368     355,882        4.9%     481,523     474,7665 \. e$ l. Y# k' \+ m: I8 U
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------( W( {" M: j* c* I, B# ^
 Winnipeg         181,579     159,860       13.6%     202,337     180,707
 $ A1 j& {! T5 i1 ?; b7 n5 D    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 0 {4 ^' l* F4 |) ^# B    Saskatchewan     170,667     156,083        9.3%     182,600     166,500. P9 `- B- v8 l
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1 W( L3 E( E; v6 Y    Calgary          395,067     252,411       56.5%     405,778     264,389
 # g' V/ v# Z# v! n; F9 `    -------------------------------------------------------------------------4 l( \5 i# l; R4 |
 Edmonton         286,857     194,857       47.2%     316,429     206,714
 , a8 L. V$ t# M    -------------------------------------------------------------------------6 w/ X$ P. K+ d; N6 j
 Vancouver        704,250     601,000       17.2%     794,000     697,5001 `7 h; d& `  O0 E' u
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 + ~/ j9 d- Q: l5 S( A    Victoria         375,000     348,000        7.8%     403,000     391,0000 D% \7 U/ ?, D4 L5 K+ B  Y
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------% o% Q) `2 a) c" [  b) d
 National         300,365     258,202       16.3%     365,380     322,860' o- G0 M5 x' d& o) s+ g
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------$ Y) ~# b4 h& b! c
 
 $ H( }7 D  M. H) Z    -------------------------------------------------------------
 : w: h6 t( z( t& w                               Standard Condominium$ ]+ T8 u  K6 e5 |. u+ ]5 v
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 . ]4 U/ h3 M* f2 Z                    2-Storey     2006 Q3     2005 Q3       Condo
 q/ f$ c, J. `4 \6 e    Market          % Change     Average     Average    % Change! [+ Z; y$ R4 C
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 , D* y2 A9 X0 Z% r  F    Halifax            -0.2%     142,000     103,000       37.9%+ |7 H* D. m, S& Z# R1 y* r, n9 @
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 3 Z1 e" ~4 J9 i# G    Charlottetown       2.9%      98,000      98,000        0.0%! h4 o3 M" |) K3 k* e4 A
 -------------------------------------------------------------. U) z: ], Y' c% ^, F* e/ `0 S
 Moncton             4.9%           -           -         N/A
 % E1 @  S9 }) y( j; o) G    -------------------------------------------------------------
 / M2 |+ Q5 }+ j. c: ]$ m0 {1 q8 ^' ^    Saint John           N/A           -           -         N/A
 A5 Y$ A! i+ Y% U5 b# l$ b    -------------------------------------------------------------1 _- k. h7 {$ q  e
 St. John's         -0.8%     146,333     145,667        0.5%9 r7 U- s8 R2 e- W
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 1 Q  G7 Y( t4 c% u$ Z) p* P    Atlantic            1.3%     128,778     115,556       11.4%
 1 s" [% U: k+ w! z    -------------------------------------------------------------+ m: B, x& m# K7 b) R
 Montreal            1.6%     193,190     188,016        2.8%
 7 d/ j9 n; w$ y0 {# T3 h  K3 z* k    -------------------------------------------------------------& ]+ [8 [% S7 X7 C0 F; l) y
 Ottawa              4.5%     181,083     172,250        5.1%" a4 F& d- S+ ]  L3 C
 -------------------------------------------------------------! v9 b, u; l. k
 Toronto             1.4%     252,088     242,918        3.8%- }9 O) D+ a7 N. Z: A2 N' M
 -------------------------------------------------------------/ H$ c; l! I, S
 Winnipeg           12.0%     105,648      96,008       10.0%, U. ]1 N+ ?. q! O- c" J
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 6 A5 R( P6 f: R% ~: [  Y1 B% N    Saskatchewan        9.7%     106,250     101,000        5.2%
 : f, M1 D$ B( ~- C% Z8 Z3 a    -------------------------------------------------------------
 . L+ z2 D! J, p6 N( I    Calgary            53.5%     245,844     153,867       59.8%
 # n+ P. c: x$ {" }& x" E    -------------------------------------------------------------2 Q$ |/ J5 a# D) {+ H$ r4 A
 Edmonton           53.1%     200,433     131,500       52.4%
 5 Q5 U! f" B9 @. B1 B    -------------------------------------------------------------  i$ v8 M+ S4 u8 N1 P5 H3 P' x
 Vancouver          13.8%     366,250     323,250       13.3%% r9 c6 h5 b( a2 j
 -------------------------------------------------------------& g- E* P6 o, @
 Victoria            3.1%     229,000     220,000        4.1%
 6 E% J( Q( V3 q% H$ C    -------------------------------------------------------------- E# _1 a$ ~: J
 National           13.2%     211,562     185,296       14.2%( O; o: B' k5 Q4 B6 E' {
 -------------------------------------------------------------1 W7 P, |/ O2 N" Y. t( m
 >>
 " o4 G) y7 R) L0 w9 H0 Z5 }& [  w- |/ u. f
 Average house prices are based on an average of all sub-markets examined
 8 \6 o( D- q9 k% W, C( O$ Fin the area, except for the smaller markets of Charlottetown, Moncton, Saint
 6 V* b9 y, l4 R9 m8 {John and Victoria.  f4 p. R4 Q0 L: g) H
 0 x+ F- X* Q/ m
 The Royal LePage Survey of Canadian House Prices is the largest, most
 E2 P# }; d* y2 {# w7 M4 Ucomprehensive study of its kind in Canada, with information on seven types of
 $ {% t0 U) E1 F4 R% Ihousing in over 250 neighbourhoods from coast to coast. This release
 9 f; x2 f* |7 _, vreferences an abbreviated version of the survey, which highlights house price6 p+ i5 `1 `! \& b- q
 trends for the three most common types of housing in Canada in 80 communities  r2 x' b! Z1 c9 d
 across the country. A complete database of past and present surveys is8 T0 E$ T6 A, T+ K
 available on the Royal LePage Web site at www.royallepage.ca, and current
 9 z& g% c( _6 ?) z" w3 {' y$ ]figures will be updated following the end of the third quarter. A printable
 8 K" M( A/ p" \# iversion of the third quarter 2006 survey will be available online on! U: x1 a0 P- [9 Y+ t. F
 November 15, 2006.
 Q5 H- C/ c) X* {    Housing values in the Royal LePage Survey are Royal LePage opinions of
 + J( k7 r' y' t9 u; bfair market value in each location, based on local data and market knowledge
 / V* B. Z. G4 j7 nprovided by Royal LePage residential real estate experts. Historical data is
 8 O# N; R( W- n+ u  ^) |available for some areas back to the early 1970s.
 | 
 |