That just transfers the gerrymandering power from elected officials (who can be thrown out if they annoy the voters enough) to whoever gets appointed to an unelected "independent organization" (which can't be thrown out by the voters).
In practice, this "independent organization" is appointed by the Canadian parliament (i.e., by the political parties), so it is "independent" in name only.
To expand a bit, the very notion of an "independent organization" seems questionable. Who will make up this organization?
Career civil servants? They will be biased toward whichever party proposes to spend more money on civil servants.
Appointees by whichever party controls parliament (as appears to be the case in Canada)? The problem there should be obvious.
Proportional appointment on the basis of election results? Biased toward the major parties at the expense of minority parties.
And so on.
Not even a blind grid system is immune -- in that case where you set the origin of the grid can have a major effect.
In fact, virtually no Western democracy chooses its leader on the basis of a popular vote (I believe there are a few exceptions).
It's sophistry to even bring it up.
I mean, sorry to step on your narrative by pointing out this basic fact.
You guys do know that even if our government operated like Canada, or Sweden, or any of the other countries you profess to admire, that Hillary Clinton still wouldn't be President, right? In fact, under a parliamentary system, the President would be chosen by insider dealing between party hacks like McConnell, Ryan, etc.