1. Personally, I never thought this was a criminal matter.  Moreover, I thought pursuing it as such would be, was, and remains a huge distraction from the underlying (and continuing) issues.  The criminal case detour was a mistake born amidst a highly-politicized hue and cry, a reflexive "call in the police" mistake oft-repeated in Canadian politics.  Lots of things are ethical, administrative, policy or political issues - without being criminal.  The Senate expense matters are examples of that.2. Senators basically need accommodations in two places to do their work: one in the province whose citizens they represent, the other in Ottawa where they do most of their work.  It matters not which of these locations constitutes their "primary residence" residence and which is "secondary".  The Senate rules archaically dwell on this red herring, leading to bizarre circumstances, changing interpretations and inconsistent enforcement.  This remains basically unresolved; these rules need to be simplified, clarified and brought into line with common sense.  It would probably be easiest to simply provide a standard housing allowance to those Senators who do maintain two residences, rather than reimbursing individual Senators inconsistently for a wide variety of personal circumstances.3. This is a big and complicated country.  Unsurprisingly, not all knowledge and understanding of it resides in Ottawa.  Senators, and MPs, must travel to do their jobs well, and not just to their own constituencies.  We should not let them abuse that privilege, but neither should we prevent them from getting out and talking to Canadians.  Nor should we confine travel to a one-size-fits-all definition of parliamentary business.  Some of the best work done by individual MPs and Senators involves one-on-one interaction with Canadians, sometimes in places or on topics others do not care as much about.  This is healthy and to be encouraged, not discouraged.4. Once again, we have seen how poorly served is the public interest by the two political committees who manage the internal administration of the House and the Senate (the House Board of Internal Economy and Senate Committee of Internal Economy).  These are non-transparent and highly partisan bodies.  They are composed of political actors who are generally in highly adversarial competition with one another.  They conduct their business in secret, and rule by (partisan) majority.  Thanks to these factors, these two committees are incapable of assuring the public that contentious matters are addressed impartially, fairly, objectively and effectively - even when that is the case.  We see this throughout the Senate expenses scandal.  We see it in the House with respect to the millions spent on the NDP's remote offices.  In neither of these matters can the public be confident that due process is being respected, that facts are addressed objectively, that enforcement is real and fair, and that justice and the public interest are served.  It is past time to move financial administration of both chambers of Parliament into less partisan hands and more transparent processes.5. Conflation of issues is no friend of thoughtful discussion.  Sure, some of us wish to democratically reform the Senate.  Others wish to abolish it.  In the meantime, it is as it is, and it needs to function better than it does.  Just using this scandal as an argument for abolition is a copout.  Likewise, the question of eligibility to serve in the Senate and the question of which province you sleep in you for 50%+1 nights are separate questions.  And of course, politics being what is, some people clearly revile the former PM; others do not.  But it will be a sad day if we ever come to think is wrong for a PM to advise parliamentarians to return public funds to which they are not entitled.  Deep breaths.6. PM Harper's office made many mistakes in dealing with this matter, the most basic of which - and the one from which the others stem - was the idea that interpretation and enforcement of Senate expense rules was somehow up to them to deal with.  It was not.  Many of those involved will have long ago deduced that almost everyone's interests - including the interests of the PM and his staff - would have been better served by letting the process unfold without their involvement.7. A lot of wrong has been done.  Reputations have been damaged, possibly unjustly.  Financial damages have been inflicted.  It remains unclear to the public whether (a) some Senators have wrongly received housing and/or travel expenses which should have been, or should be, reimbursed, or whether (b) some Senators have been unjustly and/or inconsistently accused of that.  The answer may not be the same in all the cases involved.  That we do not yet know is a serious and continuing failure of process.8. Indeed, this involves a failure of several of the processes by which we have pursued these matters: the Committee of Internal Economy for being too secret and too partisan, the Senate vote to suspend some members for being more characteristic of a mob hanging than Canadian due process, and a criminal proceeding which should never have been the setting for attempting to get to the bottom of this.All in all, a sorry period in Canadian governance. And not yet finished....Rick Anderson, a partner in National Newswatch, is a Canadian political strategist, public affairs commentator and businessman.