If a referendum were held at the same time as the next election to ensure that the changes suggested would be in effect during future elections, it would be clear to the public that progress was being made. We are used to having discussions that keep coming back and seeing referendums cancelling things in British Columbia or Quebec. The public has rejected some proposals.
However, if something changes because the public supports it in the next election, if there is an action plan and an assessment is done for the following elections, I think it would be appropriate. And it all depends on the extent of the reform. I read the first review of the Chief Electoral Officer and of the constitutionalists regarding the complexity of introducing electoral reform and the legitimacy and responsibilities of the various players to make these changes. Specifically, the Chief Electoral Officer mentioned the need to change the electoral districts.
Basically, it depends on the extent of the reform and the proposal that will be put forward and that you will pass on. You could use various ways to confirm whether it is clear and easy to understand. The other option that I think remains democratic would be to put it in place for the next election and still have methods of evaluation that would be ratified by the public. Sooner or later, it's going to need to be ratified by the public. So if it isn't through a referendum during the next election, it should be ratified in future elections. So it involves evaluating, ratifying and continuing to use it or making changes to it.