It's an excellent question, and there are experts on other jurisdictions who have looked particularly at some recent innovations.
This same process that led to the Conflict of Interest Act five years ago is ongoing in several jurisdictions, often in the wake of a scandal. I'm not aware of one that has been held up as the model, just as the different provincial statutes now give us a range. The empirical work that I've seen really focuses on metrics like what has led to greater public confidence, rather than any objective truth about what monetary penalty works or doesn't work. As I said, in most jurisdictions it's more an example of a trade-off. Those that have ethics commissioners with more powers tend also to have a more legalized procedure, and often it becomes a more litigious environment. Those who have greater discretion tend to invest far more attention on who gets appointed and what kind of all-party support there is, if it's a parliamentary system.
I know there are scholars who focus on the comparative, and I'm regrettably not one of them. In my discussions and review of the literature, I don't think it's fair to say there is a jurisdiction out there that is the gold standard. Of course, this legislation comes out of an evolution federally from earlier models that have arguably been improved on in this legislation. I think it's fair to say it's always intended to be a work-in-progress. I'm not sure there is a perfect balance that will work in every context and for all time, here or anywhere. I think the best one could say is this: as we find the elements that don't appear to be working, is there a fix or a coherence that can be brought to it? This is why we have these parliamentary reviews and why it's so important to not simply let legislation stand without a chance to look at how it's working and how it can be improved.