I think it's important in terms of objectivity, as you said, and in terms of expertise. It's a task that requires a certain expertise, and that expertise is acquired over many years.
It's good to have someone who does only that. It's good to have someone who is non-partisan, so he's going to treat every issue the same, whether it's a member of party x or party y—it doesn't matter when it comes to seeking the truth.
It is also important in terms of the public credibility of the whole process of dealing with conflicts of interest. It has to be someone who has peace of mind, who is appointed for seven years and who has tenure, so they cannot be easily removed. They must decide whether or not someone has breached the provisions of the act or the code, as that person often holds a very important position, such as the Prime Minister or a Deputy Minister.
For all these reasons, I think it is good to have an officer of Parliament in this area. In the past, as you may know, until 2007, there were predecessors, but they didn't have the same formal independence, legal independence in fact.