The proposed $33k ubi would indeed match the threshold, but people above this threshold who make 40k or 50k would lose those benefits and have less money.

Sometimes the U in UBI is stated as Unconditional instead of Universal. A core issue with our current system is the "welfare cliff" issue of earning costs people benefits. In your scenario, that person would be making a total of $73k-$83k. If it is employment income instead of investment income, it is free of federal and payroll taxes too. They are free to live with several friends each having a $33k minimum to contribute to mutual aid (no household income conditions either). The plan is criticism proof from concern trolling over poverty.

metropolitan centers have substantially higher living costs than rural areas, but their infrastructure costs per resident are lower than for rural residents because of scale.

There is already a mechanism for Provincial variances mentioned in text, where higher GDP provinces would have higher UBI (each province's revenue is 10% of own GDP + 15% of national GDP). It is a misconception that metropolis's have lower government costs/capita than rural areas. Homelessness/Policing/Poverty is a huge section of budget in Toronto. This gives them budget room to supplement UBI, and/or increase property taxes to supplement even more. Cities have the capability of funding UBI on their own with just property taxes, where for sake of argument a single square footage of living space is standardized. Then everyone who lives at the exact average density (person per square foot) level pays no taxes, and those who live in higher density get a subsidy while those in lower density pay net tax.

UBI also lets you move to a cheaper part of the federation. You need to live in Toronto only if you need a Toronto job. Generally cost of living is related to job access. UBI/freedom dividends lets you move (affordably) to someplace before you have an income setup for the new place. Current welfare/unemployment system prevents you from moving.

How about indigenous communities?

A debate to have, but my view is treat them as Canadians, and let them pool their resources for collective or leave the reserve as their individual choice. Certain that would make them better off.

this transition IS the real obstacle.

It is such a quibble. Sure there are school board and other government jobs threatened by change. Gaslighting politicians keeping total control over people, and forcing their misery, gives them more power and the ability to gaslight the miserable that they are their great hope for relief. UBI is not politically possible without a crisis, because it is power redistribution, and politicians hate and contempt of the slave class is absolute, or relatively higher than any appetite for their loss of power.

The excerpt quoted from paper, does allow "long transition proposal" to just gaslight freedom for Canadians after delay and slow transition to full freedom. This would give Canadian negotiators the leverage to return to their nazi colony pedestal from US concessions. The last part of paper, shows that freedom would be extremely attractive to individual US states that are oppressed by their Fuhrer, and the Canadian freedom example would awaken populist freedom calls, where even the highest GDP states get a higher freedom dividend by joining Canada than trying to go alone. Because freedom is contagious and obvious, the US would be forced to retreat from their repression of Canada, or they lose their country.