That's an excellent question, and it's a difficult balance to strike. The bill tries to strike that balance by focusing on sanctions that seem appropriate, that seem compatible with a judge's resuming their full duties with the confidence of the public. You'll notice that some sanctions that you might find in other workplaces, like suspension from duties for a time or suspension without pay, are not really included. There is some question whether some of them might be fully compatible with judicial independence—but also, if you include those kinds of sanctions, you might be implicitly raising the bar for removal.
If a judge has done something so serious that you need to dock their pay, we're probably in the realm of something serious enough that removal is warranted.
As to where to draw the line so that you don't either overshoot or undershoot the mark, the Supreme Court of Canada has set out in its two main decisions on judicial conduct, which are referenced in some of your material, Therrien and Moreau-Bérubé, that the bar for judicial conduct is very high. Judges are expected to be a cut above in how they conduct themselves.
With that in mind, the list of sanctions seems like a list that is appropriate so that a judge is allowed to resume their duties with the confidence of the public. It's in line with the sanctions that you will find in other regimes, including in the provinces, as well as in countries whose legal systems and judiciaries are very similar to ours, like the U.K., New Zealand, the U.S. federal courts and Australia.