Further to that, even the most ardent proponent of a referendum will agree that the alternative to FPTP must be clearly and concisely defined ... and the committee did not provide such a definition. And it sure looks as if Monsef expected them to.   If it wasn't the committee's job to provide that, whose was it? 

The Liberal committee rep said Canadians aren't informed enough yet for a referendum - and that is true - but the informational process has to start with a clearly stated alternative. 

BC has already shown us what happens when you try to explain several options at once: information overload, and FPTP stayed (vote was over 50% to ditch FPTP, but had to be 60-something for some reason).