I don't think Canadians are interested in a sweeping seminar on all of the alternatives. There's some work to be done in at least narrowing down what the realistic choices are at this point and then debating those.
Even within PR systems, there are different thresholds and formulas you might apply that have implications about at what point a party might get a seat in the House, etc. I don't think Canadians need to know the D'Hondt formula for allocating seats in a proportional system. What I think Canadians might be interested in is giving input, as you go across the country, about what they see as valuable in terms of the nature of representation, and even how they vote, from their perspective, whether they like the simplicity of putting a check mark next to a name or whether they like the appeal of being able to rank candidates.
Those are straightforward questions, but we can lose the forest for the trees if we engage in some of these overly technical things. That's part of why I don't think a referendum would be overly complicated and technically overwhelm Canadians. By the time we got to that point, it would come down to one alternative, ideally, that Canadians would assess against the status quo.