You simply have no idea what you’re taking about. You don’t even understand what the market is.
You appear to honestly believe that the top of a snow-capped mountain or a frozen, treeless tundra are equally desirable as a living space to a lot in southern Ontario. Are you a musk ox?
However, people don’t choose to live “nationwide”; they choose to live in a specific town or locale. Housing prices are also not set “nationwide”; they vary by town and locale.
Making housing cheaper than it already is in Timmins is going to do nothing at all for housing prices in the GTA. People don’t “have to end up” in the GTA; they CHOOSE to live there because of the opportunities present there.
They could choose to live in places with lower housing prices; that option is available to them right now. Why do you think people aren’t flooding into those places?
For example, here’s a nice little two bedroom starter in Timmins for $129K CAD. Are you, or any of the people you know, interested in this property? Why or why not?
Your larger issue seems to be that large swathes of Canada don’t have big cities in them. Land availability, however, is not the issue in any of those places, and until you understand what the issues really are, your arguments make no sense in the real world.
What’s with these cliches about tundra and mountains? New Brunswick (no tundra, no mountains) has just barely more people than Alaska (tundra and mountains!)
And New Brunswick has a substantially lower percentage of land that is Crown Land than Ontario or BC (plus, NB is less than one-twentieth the size of Alaska).
Right now, there are homes for sale in Fredericton for much lower prices than in the GTA. Why are your friends not moving there?
Why is it that Canadians believe every idiotic conspiracy theory about the U.S. government but the notion that their own government could use reform is outrageous?
Uh, you are aware that Alaska is slightly larger than New Brunswick, right? 
The relevant figure is population density, not total population.
New Brunswick: 10.5 per km/square
Alaska: 0.4 per km/sq.
New Brunswick’s population density is 26 times that of Alaska …
See, this is why your ideas are picking up such mockery in this thread: you have no grasp on the facts.
So far, the only one peddling conspiracy theories is you. As far as I can see, you appear convinced that, for reasons unknown, the Canadian government is strangling population growth by use of land policies.
So far you have advanced no actual evidence for this, have no theory as to why the government would do that, and have steadfastly refused to even acknowledge any evidence contrary to your position.
Yeah, and New Jersey has about 400 people per square km. So what’s your point?
I thought we were talking about tundra and mountains.
:smack:
The point is that land such as “tundra and mountains” will typically support a significantly less dense population than better land, such as that found in New Brunswick (or New Jersey, for that matter).
I am indeed starting to wonder what the point of debating this is … seems such a simple concept, but for reasons that elude me you are apparently unable to understand it.
Conspiracy theory? A five year old could look at this map and make the cause-and-effect connection between crown land use and Vancouver having the most overvalued real estate in the world. It’s not my fault that everyone is reflexively going into mafia-lawyer mode and refusing to even consider that reform might be a good idea. Part of the Canadian psyche perhaps?
For god’s sake, all I was saying was that dismissing all of Canada as “tundra and mountains” (not by you) is so weird because so much of Canada is neither tundra nor mountains. (And even where there are tundra and mountains, the U.S. mysteriously manages to have settlements there.)
WE put a man on the moon…more than once…we just are that DAMN good 
You guys managed to build an arm or something.
Which major US cities are on tundra or mountains? Hint: neither Anchorage or Denver qualifies.
I would have imagined looking at a topographical map of Vancouver and its environs would tell you a lot more. Notice how it is surrounded by mountains and the sea, and so has nowhere to expand?
But then, I’m not a five year old, so what do I know. Must be my “Canadian psyche” that is blinding me to the obvious non-impact of geography. 
Don’t worry what your lying eyes might tell you. Government and industry have left you all the best land, trust me.
And any five-year-old making that connection would be wrong. Do you actually know where Vancouver is located?
I thought we were talking about New Brunswick and the parts of Alaska where people live. (Hint: 40% of the population of Alaska lives in the city of Anchorage, a city built on coastal lowland with a maritime climate.)
Somewhere around Hong Kong?
I get the impression he seriously thinks it doesn’t matter - that you could put a new Vancouver in the interior of BC, if only those nasty governments and industries would allow it, and helpfully put in place the required infrastructure.
How about this: point to any Crown Land within or immediately adjacent to the City of Vancouver that is stalling the expansion of Vancouver.
Take a look at that map you linked–do you see the big blob of purple down in the southwest corner of the mainland? Do you see the label for purple that reads “BC Private Lands”? Do you understand what that blob and that label mean when used in conjunction?
Have you ever thought about going to Scotland, armed only with a topographical map, and telling all the lairds in the Highlands that their land is worthless and they should give it to you?
