There aren't really "jobs Canadians won't do". There are jobs Canadians don't want to pay enough to have done. It should be intuitively obvious that people coming from less prosperous circumstances - call that "Point A", and call the minimum circumstances attractive to well-seasoned Canadians "Point B" - will look at Canada and settle for opportunities in the gap between "Point A" and "Point B", because those amount to net improvements from their points of view. Studies tend to bear that out. That behaviour can be confirmed by looking at employment ranging from menial tasks like picking fruit, to analytical tasks like writing software. Bringing in people willing to work for less in any particular occupation subject to market competition amounts to downward pressure on wages. The presence of social benefits aggravates the problem by making the region closer to "Point A" more attractive than it otherwise might be, and by placing financial obligations on the people required to fund the benefits, some of whom will be experiencing the downward pressure on wages. None of that is a moral judgement on social benefits. The phenomena are empirically observable and observed, and the resulting problems can either be solved or whined about using the languages of activism.
People who want quality childcare - "I care about my child" - at prices that pay unattractive wages to the line workers, or that are paid by other people, ought to really admit "I care about my lifestyle more than my child".
Most kinds of proposed financial relief for home buyers - tax and fee reductions or exemptions, grants, special savings programs, use of tax-sheltered savings, etc - are demand-side and will tend to inflate home prices.
Example:
- "Let's see. I can bid up to $1.2M for a home, given the taxes and fees I will also have to pay."
- New programs which remove/reduce taxes and fees by approximately $50K are introduced.
- "Let's see. I can bid up to $1.25M for a home, given the taxes and fees I will also have to pay."