Manitoba MP Submits Motion to Convert CERB
000 words maximum (up to 50 words grace will be permitted without penalty. Papers
exceeding 1050 words will be penalized).
Your citations and works cited are not included in
your word count.
• If you would like to receive grading comments on your final paper for this course, please opt
in by writing “Comments” in the top left corner of your paper.
• Provide your word count at the top right corner of your paper.
• MLA style citations and works cited required (in text citations must include author’s last name
and page number).
• Canadian English spellings required (except for direct quotes).
• Gender inclusive language required (except for direct quotes).
• Papers must be double spaced.
• Papers must be in PDF format
In the article “Manitoba MP Submits Motion to Convert CERB Benefit to Permanent Basic
Income”, Amber McGuckin explains that Canadian MP Leah Gazan “tabled a motion in the
House of Commons to convert CERB into a permanent guaranteed liveable basic income.”
CERB was a $2000 per month benefit available to workers residing in Canada who were a
minimum of 15 years of age, who lost their jobs involuntarily or could not find employment due
to Covid-19, and earned at least $5000 in the year preceding the date of their application.
Converting CERB to a permanent guaranteed liveable basic income or unconditional basic
income (UBI) would make this benefit permanent, and available to all (regardless of employment
history or income). Gazan argues that “COVID-19 has demonstrated that we do have the
resources. We must ensure all individuals in Canada can thrive in dignity and that means making
investments to ensure basic human rights for all”
In your paper you will construct an argument for whether or not CERB should be converted to
UBI. The central focuses of this assignment are the course readings “Distributive Justice” by
John Rawls and “Basic Income, Self-Respect and Reciprocity” by Catriona McKinnon.
Would McKinnon think there are good grounds to convert CERB to UBI? Be sure to examine
Rawls’ and McKinnon’s arguments in detail, including the maximin principle and the social
bases of self-respect. Do you agree or disagree with McKinnon’s position? Should UBI be a
permanent universal benefit in Canada?
In this assignment you are required to discuss and reference “Manitoba MP Submits Motion to
Convert CERB Benefit to Permanent Basic Income” by Amber McGuckin, “Distributive Justice”
by John Rawls and “Basic Income, Self-Respect and Reciprocity” by Catriona McKinnon. Page
references for Rawls’ and McKinnon’s articles must be to the articles posted on the course
NOTE: This is not an economics assignment. This is an assignment on whether or not McKinnon
would argue for converting CERB to UBI, and whether or not you agree or disagree with
McKinnon’s position. Submitting a paper focused on purported economic constraints is off-topic.
NOTE: There is no requirement to find additional sources for this assignment. Any additional
sources must be peer-reviewed and from an academic publisher.
NOTE: You are advised to use direct quotes sparingly, and to explain ideas in your own words as
much as it is possible to do so. Quotes can be used for emphasis, but not as a stand-in for
explaining theory concepts. If you rely on quotes to explain a theory, we will assume you do not
understand the theory enough to explain it in your own words and evaluate you accordingly.
In constructing your argument you must do the following:
1. Have a clearly stated thesis.
2. Explain the theory you are appealing to or arguing against clearly in terms of the concepts we
have encountered in class and in the course readings.
3. Argue for your thesis with reference to material we have encountered in class and in the
4. Anticipate an objection to your thesis.
5. Reply to this objection.
Please note the following:
▪Papers without proper and complete citations and a proper bibliography will not be
▪Where applicable always cite passages and ideas from the readings NOT from the course notes.
▪No late papers will be accepted.
▪Papers will not be read beyond the maximum word count.
▪Papers must be double-spaced, in 12-point Times New Roman font, with standard margins.
▪Papers that do not meet these requirements will be penalized at the instructor’s discretion.
1. Introduction: Keep it brief and to the point. What are you going to argue, and how are
you going to argue for it? What theory will you appeal to/argue against? What major
point will your argument make? Your thesis statement is normally the last sentence of
2. Exposition: Here you will explain the view that you are either supporting or arguing
against. Assume that your reader is intelligent but knows nothing about the theory or
view you are explaining.
3. Argument: Here you will begin the argument for your thesis. Stick to the best reason(s)
in support of your thesis. Do not introduce more claims than you have the space to
4. Objection: Here you will consider a strong objection against your own argument. How
might an opponent criticize your argument? You will likely want to stick to one strong
objection in this paper.
5. Reply: Here you will continue your argument for your thesis by answering the objection
raised in section 4. It is important that this section brings something new to your
argument, and is not just a restatement of claims you have made earlier in your paper.
6. Conclusion: Here you will briefly sum up how you have argued for your thesis.
Writing a Philosophy Paper:
MLA Citations Guide: https://libguides.kpu.ca/mla
MLA Citations Tutorial: https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/mlastyle