Most of Canada is sparsely inhabited or uninhabitable. Unlike the US, there are far fewer places to live besides the major metro areas.
SF and NYC are not good comparisons either. Yes, they are expensive and 90%+ of the country could never afford to live there—that part is the same—but Americans have so many more options. There are small- and medium-sized cities all over the US.
Even small towns are well >$600k for rundown detached houses here.
There's multiple considerations. For example. If you need access to quality healthcare for certain conditions, you'll need be limited in cities you can reside in/near.
Even if someone can survive the isolation living in the north requires (and the $7 heads of lettuce) there often isn't many options for earning an income.
British Columbia is absolutely massive but it's all mountain. The places to build are already built upon.
There is also a knee-jerk reaction across north america to any density beyond single family homes automatically being glass and steel high rises that block the sun. What we really need is missing middle properties, like tri- and quad-plexes. Low and mid rise apartment buildings with plenty of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units. A lot more density than we have in suburbs now, but not crowded or packed.
Montreal is one of the few cities in north america that actually has that missing middle housing. It's also the only metro region in Canada that has both mostly contained sprawl and been relatively unaffected by the housing crisis. This is not a coincidence since people have all sorts of choices about what type of housing to live in that fits their budget and lifestyle instead of ones forced by extremely limited zoning options.
I am sure many others prefer lower rent or not being homeless
From the government's perspective. There are many factors for not building and improving remote towns. Some are: a) climate change (vehicles, heating, trucking and more) b) lack of infrastructure (gas, roads, railroads, healthcare) c) lack of budget (most of Federal revenues go to redistribution payments)
The biggest issue I've noticed in Canada is a lack of will. Ibn Khaldun noticed later in a nation, citizens view the function of government as a means to provide leisure. Western Civilization is obviously going through a time of major upheaval. The 1950s - 1990s were an aberration, I don't think we're going to see those standards of living in the future. We can't expect large scale shipping routes to remote locations, so people can live in detached housing. Future housing will likely be large scale, high density, low sqft apartments designed for maximum efficiency of energy and infrastructure.
My thoughts are the nation technically doesn't need many people living in rural areas. The collective pursuits will win over the individual in the future.
Now, whether we need new cities is a separate question.
In Canada where taxation and housing is expensive, the complaint has been that fertile landed is being used for urban sprawl.
One potential solution, that's rarely discussed, is to build cities in the North adjacent to large bodies of water. With access to shipping routes, lower taxation and superior infrastructure to make up for the adverse affects of weather.
You may argue the economic incentives and capital aren't there. I'd argue there's a massive misallocation of capital and the economy is fundamentally broken, but that'd be a lengthy discussion.
The easy way is to provide dirty water, shabby schools, and expensive food, but we do that already and people aren't exactly flocking north.
Where is this? As an Albertan my experience isn't even that in the city.
There’s this myth that america has all this land and space and that causes this or that, which is partially true, but the reason why Toronto is expensive has nothing to do with the fact that it’s very challenging to live in the northern reaches of the country. Canada has 1/10th the population of the US and fewer people than the single state of California. There’s plenty of space within the few major cities within the country.
For another reference, there are more people living in the New York and LA metro areas than in all of Canada.
It's entirely possible in the US to rise to the top of most industries without moving to NYC, Chicago, or LA. It's not possible to do so in Canada without moving to Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver (plus Calgary/Edmonton for energy).
This is a story familiar to every Canadian, and to many Australians and Britons:
Mid-career executive accepts job offer in the US in some place like Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, Oklahoma City, or Tampa. Is excited about the opportunity and the raise in salary, and curious about living in a different country, but a little nervous about moving to a "right wing Republican" state "without healthcare".
A few months in, the reports back to friends and family change. More and more mention of the "amazing" house they found in the suburbs with an outdoor pool (!) that is so much less expensive than in Toronto or Vancouver, the "fantastic" school the kids attend with sports teams and cheerleading and other afterschool activities, and—especially—how unbelievably cheap everything is at the supermarket, mall, and gas station.
That family is never moving back to Canada. This happens over and over again.
(Also, NYC/Chicago/LA are cheaper than Toronto/Vancouver, anyway. A Canadian expatriate in the US reported recently that her home in Fairfield County, Connecticut (very, very upscale NYC suburb) is cheaper than GTA.)