I can see the argument for it, but on balance I think the arguments against it are better, frankly.
Beginning from a constitutional position, it certainly isn't constitutionally required to have a referendum.
Second, I agree with our distinguished academic from Toronto in terms of some of the conditions she laid out. If, for example, more than one party campaigned for it, as was the case for this Parliament, when not only the Liberal Party but also the New Democratic Party and the Green Party all campaigned on the basis of committing themselves to some form of electoral reform, that for me gives solid democratic legitimacy to the project. Parliamentary democracy entails not direct citizen participation but representative participation, so having more than one party is important. I strongly agree that it would be a fundamental mistake for the governing party alone to bring in a system that it alone favoured. That would not be legitimate in a democracy, as has already been suggested by my academic colleague as well.