That's a very good question.
I think I understood most of what you were asking. It seems to me that it's more efficient to prevent a breach of the rules from happening than it is to investigate afterwards and try to pick up the pieces.
When Greg Evans was the first ethics commissioner in Canada, I think his meetings with cabinet ministers were about half an hour long, sometimes longer if something was really complicated in terms of their business, and sometimes shorter if their personal holdings were very straightforward. The meetings were very quick. The great thing about them is that they created a rapport. The commissioner was seen as someone who was there to help them stay out of trouble, not someone who was there to investigate them and punish them afterwards, so they wanted to take advantage of that advice.
In the end, there wasn't a lot of work to do or a lot for the commissioner to investigate, so it seems to me that with an average of four investigations per year, which are time-consuming, expensive, and take a lot of staff time...if you could cut down on those, then there is going to be enough staff time available to have these personal meetings.