Legislative Systems Integrity Act

By /

Model Act Generated from the NSIR / CLIP Clean-System Framework

Long Title

An Act to establish systems-integrity requirements for high-impact legislation; to require purpose mapping, authority mapping, clause mapping, data-power mapping, rights-impact review, AI and automation exposure review, failure-mode analysis, appeal and remedy review, rollback and sunset review, implementation mapping, and citizen-readable bill summaries; and to ensure that laws creating or modifying public systems are visible, auditable, reviewable, correctable, and democratically accountable before enactment.

Preamble

Whereas law is not only text, but public operating architecture;

Whereas legislation creates powers, duties, institutions, data flows, discretion, enforcement pathways, eligibility rules, review mechanisms, rights effects, funding systems, timelines, reporting duties, and public systems;

Whereas a bill may appear simple as text while creating complex administrative machinery;

Whereas democratic lawmaking requires that legislators and the public understand not only what a bill intends, but what system the bill will create;

Whereas unclear legislation may create vague authority, hidden discretion, unreviewable decisions, weak appeal pathways, data powers without correction, emergency powers without rollback, digital systems without auditability, and AI exposure without safeguards;

Whereas high-impact legislation should be examined before enactment for public purpose, authority, implementation capacity, rights impact, data use, digital exposure, appealability, auditability, reversibility, failure modes, and public legibility;

Whereas clean lawmaking improves the quality of democratic judgment without replacing political choice;

Whereas systems-integrity review shall not decide political values, but shall make legislative machinery visible enough for lawful democratic debate;

Therefore, Parliament enacts as follows.

Part 1 — Short Title, Purpose, and Core Principles

1. Short Title

This Act may be cited as the Legislative Systems Integrity Act.

2. Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to ensure that high-impact legislation is reviewed before enactment or substantial amendment for:

  1. clear public purpose;
  2. lawful and bounded authority;
  3. institutional responsibility;
  4. clause-level coherence;
  5. affected rights and interests;
  6. data powers and data flows;
  7. AI, automation, and digital implementation exposure;
  8. appeal, review, remedy, and correction pathways;
  9. auditability and recordkeeping;
  10. implementation capacity;
  11. federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, and Indigenous jurisdictional effects;
  12. failure modes and foreseeable harms;
  13. rollback, sunset, renewal, and statutory review mechanisms;
  14. citizen legibility.

3. Core Rule

A high-impact bill shall not proceed to final vote unless a legislative systems integrity review has been prepared and made available to legislators and, subject to lawful limits, to the public.

4. Law as System Principle

For the purposes of this Act, a bill shall be reviewed not only as legal text, but as a system design that may create, modify, expand, delegate, digitize, automate, enforce, fund, or terminate public authority.

5. Democratic Non-Substitution Principle

A legislative systems integrity review shall not decide whether a bill should pass.

It shall make visible the system the bill would create, the powers it would authorize, the risks it would introduce, the safeguards it would contain, and the questions legislators should decide.

6. Public Legibility Principle

A high-impact bill shall be accompanied by a citizen-readable explanation sufficient to allow an ordinary person to understand what public system the bill creates or changes, who is affected, what powers are created, what rights may be affected, what data may be used, how decisions may be challenged, and how the system may be reviewed, corrected, or ended.

7. Relationship to Other Law

This Act supplements and does not limit constitutional law, parliamentary privilege, legislative procedure, administrative law, human rights law, privacy law, access-to-information law, fiscal review, regulatory review, Indigenous rights, treaty obligations, or any other applicable legal duty.

Nothing in this Act authorizes a technical review body to override a legislature, court, tribunal, Indigenous right, or constitutional obligation.

Part 2 — Definitions

8. Definitions

In this Act:

“affected person” means a person, household, organization, community, Indigenous government, business, public body, or legal entity whose rights, benefits, obligations, eligibility, access, service level, legal status, privacy, property, livelihood, liberty, safety, or public interest may be materially affected by a bill.

“AI exposure review” means analysis of whether a bill creates, authorizes, requires, enables, incentivizes, or is likely to be implemented through AI, automation, algorithmic systems, digital platforms, data-sharing systems, automated decision support, or machine-assisted administration.

“authority map” means a documented account of the powers, duties, delegations, discretion, decision-makers, oversight bodies, review bodies, enforcement bodies, limits, and accountability mechanisms created or modified by a bill.

“bill” means proposed legislation, statutory amendment, regulation-making authority, delegated legislative instrument, or other legislative proposal subject to review under this Act.

“citizen-readable bill summary” means a plain-language explanation of a bill’s public purpose, system effects, affected persons, powers created, data powers, rights effects, appeal mechanisms, implementation duties, review mechanisms, and rollback or sunset provisions.

“clause map” means a structured account of each operative clause of a bill and its function within the public system created or modified by the bill.

“data-power map” means a documented account of the data collection, generation, inference, sharing, retention, correction, deletion, reuse, reporting, analytics, AI use, or data-access powers created or modified by a bill.

“failure mode” means a foreseeable way in which a law or public system created by law may fail to achieve its purpose, violate rights, create delay, obscure authority, prevent appeal, create unreviewable discretion, enable capture, generate irreversible harm, resist correction, or produce outcomes contrary to public purpose.

“high-impact bill” means a bill that materially creates, modifies, expands, delegates, restricts, funds, digitizes, automates, enforces, or terminates public authority affecting rights, benefits, obligations, eligibility, access to essential services, legal status, enforcement, public safety, housing, immigration, taxation, health, education, child welfare, infrastructure, emergency powers, procurement, data systems, AI systems, digital identity, public finance, or other significant public interests.

“implementation map” means a documented account of the institutions, staffing, funding, technology, data, procurement, timelines, regulations, guidance, training, oversight, reporting, and operational steps required to implement a bill.

“legislative systems integrity review” means a structured review of a high-impact bill to identify the public system it creates or changes, the powers it authorizes, the data and digital systems it may require, the rights and remedies it affects, the failure modes it may create, and the safeguards required for lawful, auditable, reviewable, reversible, and citizen-legible implementation.

“public authority” means a department, ministry, agency, Crown corporation, tribunal, regulator, public office, municipality, delegated authority, contractor acting under public authority, or other body exercising public functions under law.

“responsible legislative sponsor” means the minister, member, committee, public authority, or other sponsor responsible for introducing, proposing, or advancing a bill.

“rights-impact review” means analysis of a bill’s effect on constitutional rights, statutory rights, human rights, privacy, procedural fairness, equality, liberty, mobility, property, livelihood, Indigenous rights, treaty obligations, access to justice, democratic participation, and other protected interests.

“rollback review” means analysis of whether a bill contains adequate review, sunset, expiry, repeal, suspension, correction, decommissioning, transition, or recovery mechanisms.

“systems-integrity certificate” means a formal statement that the required legislative systems integrity review has been completed, classified, disclosed, and provided to legislators before final vote.

Part 3 — Application

9. Application

This Act applies to high-impact bills introduced, sponsored, tabled, substantially amended, or referred for legislative consideration.

10. High-Impact Classification

A bill shall be classified as high-impact where it materially affects, or is reasonably likely to materially affect:

  1. constitutional or legal rights;
  2. eligibility for public benefits, permits, grants, licenses, housing, health, education, immigration, taxation, or social supports;
  3. access to essential public services;
  4. enforcement, inspection, investigation, penalties, sanctions, policing, corrections, child welfare, border administration, or compliance actions;
  5. legal status, identity, liberty, mobility, livelihood, property, or privacy;
  6. emergency powers, crisis governance, public safety, national security, or critical infrastructure;
  7. public procurement, public finance, taxation, spending, grants, or public assets above a prescribed threshold;
  8. digital identity, public data systems, data-sharing, AI, automation, algorithmic decision support, or digital public administration;
  9. environmental assessment, infrastructure approval, energy systems, housing delivery, defense capability, or national resilience;
  10. any other matter prescribed by regulation.

11. Critical Bills

A high-impact bill shall be designated as critical where failure, ambiguity, opacity, overbreadth, weak review, weak rollback, or defective implementation could create serious harm to rights, essential services, public safety, infrastructure, public finance, national security, public trust, or continuity of government.

Critical bills shall receive enhanced review, independent review, and red-team analysis.

12. Material Amendments

A material amendment to a high-impact bill shall trigger an updated legislative systems integrity review where the amendment materially changes:

  1. purpose;
  2. powers;
  3. discretion;
  4. affected population;
  5. rights impact;
  6. data powers;
  7. digital or AI exposure;
  8. enforcement;
  9. review or remedy;
  10. implementation;
  11. rollback or sunset.

13. Prohibition on Avoidance

A bill shall not be divided, relabelled, delegated, moved into regulation, embedded in omnibus text, or structured in phases for the purpose of avoiding review under this Act.

Part 4 — Legislative Systems Integrity Review Requirement

14. Review Requirement

A responsible legislative sponsor shall ensure that a legislative systems integrity review is prepared for every high-impact bill before final vote.

15. Timing

The review shall be available:

  1. before committee review where practicable;
  2. before final vote in all cases;
  3. before adoption of material amendments where practicable;
  4. before coming into force where urgent legislation prevents pre-enactment review.

16. Contents of Review

A legislative systems integrity review shall include:

  1. public purpose map;
  2. authority map;
  3. clause map;
  4. affected-person map;
  5. rights-impact review;
  6. data-power map;
  7. AI and automation exposure review;
  8. digital implementation review;
  9. enforcement review;
  10. appeal, review, remedy, and correction review;
  11. auditability and recordkeeping review;
  12. implementation map;
  13. jurisdictional map;
  14. failure-mode analysis;
  15. rollback, sunset, renewal, and statutory review analysis;
  16. citizen-readable bill summary;
  17. evidence classification;
  18. unresolved issues requiring legislative attention.

17. Systems-Integrity Certificate

A high-impact bill shall be accompanied by a systems-integrity certificate confirming:

  1. whether the review was completed;
  2. who prepared the review;
  3. whether independent review occurred;
  4. whether major findings were disclosed;
  5. whether unresolved risks remain;
  6. whether the bill contains appeal, review, remedy, audit, and rollback provisions where required;
  7. whether implementation requirements are identified;
  8. whether citizen-readable summary was published.

18. Classification of Findings

Each major finding shall be classified as:

  1. legal authority;
  2. sourced fact;
  3. official data;
  4. expert assessment;
  5. systems inference;
  6. scenario risk;
  7. unresolved legal issue;
  8. unresolved implementation issue;
  9. recommendation;
  10. claim requiring review.

19. Limits of Review

A legislative systems integrity review shall not determine the political desirability of a bill.

It shall identify system structure, risk, safeguards, implementation requirements, and questions for democratic judgment.

Part 5 — Public Purpose Map

20. Public Purpose Statement

Every high-impact bill shall include a public purpose statement.

21. Contents of Public Purpose Statement

The public purpose statement shall identify:

  1. the problem the bill addresses;
  2. the public good served;
  3. the outcomes intended;
  4. the harms intended to reduce;
  5. the affected population;
  6. why existing authority is insufficient;
  7. how success will be assessed;
  8. responsible authority for implementation.

22. No Purpose Substitution

A bill shall not rely on broad or symbolic purpose language where the operative clauses create powers, systems, or effects materially different from the stated purpose.

23. Output Logic

Where a bill is intended to produce material public outcomes, the review shall identify the pathway from legal authority to output.

The review shall ask:

  1. what action is required;
  2. by whom;
  3. with what resources;
  4. through what process;
  5. by what deadline;
  6. measured by what output;
  7. corrected by what feedback loop.

Part 6 — Authority Map

24. Authority Map Requirement

Every high-impact bill shall include an authority map.

25. Contents of Authority Map

The authority map shall identify:

  1. new powers created;
  2. existing powers modified;
  3. powers repealed;
  4. duties imposed;
  5. discretion granted;
  6. delegations authorized;
  7. decision-makers;
  8. enforcement bodies;
  9. regulators;
  10. tribunals or review bodies;
  11. ministers or officials responsible;
  12. limits on authority;
  13. reporting obligations;
  14. oversight mechanisms;
  15. affected rights and interests.

26. Delegated Authority

Where a bill delegates authority to regulation, ministerial order, administrative guidance, technical standards, vendor systems, AI systems, or public bodies, the review shall identify:

  1. scope of delegation;
  2. limits;
  3. accountability;
  4. publication requirements;
  5. review mechanisms;
  6. appeal or remedy pathways;
  7. expiry or renewal rules where appropriate.

27. Discretion Review

Where a bill grants discretion, the review shall identify:

  1. who exercises discretion;
  2. criteria guiding discretion;
  3. limits on discretion;
  4. reasons requirements;
  5. reviewability;
  6. risk of arbitrary or inconsistent application;
  7. safeguards.

28. No Hidden Authority

A high-impact bill shall not create material public powers through undefined, inaccessible, unpublished, or unreviewable mechanisms.

Part 7 — Clause Map

29. Clause Mapping Requirement

Every high-impact bill shall include a clause map.

30. Contents of Clause Map

The clause map shall identify, for each operative clause:

  1. clause number;
  2. legal function;
  3. power or duty created;
  4. affected authority;
  5. affected persons;
  6. data powers created;
  7. enforcement effect;
  8. review or remedy effect;
  9. implementation dependency;
  10. interaction with other clauses;
  11. interaction with existing law;
  12. failure mode if clause is ambiguous or defective.

31. Clause Dependency Review

The review shall identify dependencies between clauses, including:

  1. definitions required for operative powers;
  2. enforcement powers dependent on regulations;
  3. rights affected by procedural clauses;
  4. data powers hidden in implementation clauses;
  5. appeal rights dependent on decision classification;
  6. sunset or review provisions dependent on reporting duties.

32. Incoherence Flag

Where clauses conflict, create circular authority, leave essential terms undefined, create powers without safeguards, or create duties without capacity, the review shall flag the issue for legislative attention.

Part 8 — Data-Power Map

33. Data-Power Map Requirement

Every high-impact bill shall include a data-power map where the bill creates, modifies, authorizes, enables, or implies data collection, use, sharing, inference, analytics, reporting, identity verification, registry creation, surveillance, or digital administration.

34. Contents of Data-Power Map

The data-power map shall identify:

  1. data categories;
  2. legal authority for collection;
  3. source of data;
  4. affected persons;
  5. data-sharing powers;
  6. data retention;
  7. data correction;
  8. data deletion or de-identification;
  9. secondary use;
  10. sensitive data;
  11. vendor access;
  12. AI or automation use;
  13. public reporting;
  14. audit logs;
  15. privacy review requirements.

35. Data Correction Review

The review shall identify whether affected persons can inspect, challenge, correct, annotate, or seek remedy for data materially used in high-impact public decisions.

36. Secondary Use Review

Where a bill permits data collected for one purpose to be used for another purpose, the review shall identify the legal basis, public purpose, affected persons, safeguards, and limits.

37. Data Minimization

The review shall identify whether the bill uses or authorizes data beyond what appears necessary and proportionate for the public purpose.

Part 9 — AI, Automation, and Digital Exposure Review

38. AI Exposure Review Requirement

Every high-impact bill shall include an AI and automation exposure review where the bill is likely to be implemented through AI, automation, algorithmic systems, digital portals, data-sharing systems, automated workflows, dashboards, or vendor platforms.

39. Contents of AI Exposure Review

The AI exposure review shall identify:

  1. whether AI or automation is authorized, required, implied, or likely;
  2. what decision pathways may be affected;
  3. what data is required;
  4. what human review exists;
  5. whether affected persons can receive reasons;
  6. whether appeal or remedy exists;
  7. whether audit trails are required;
  8. whether vendor systems may be involved;
  9. whether the system can be suspended or rolled back;
  10. whether further AI governance legislation applies.

40. Digital Implementation Review

Where a bill is likely to require digital implementation, the review shall identify:

  1. portals;
  2. identity systems;
  3. databases;
  4. case-management systems;
  5. dashboards;
  6. data-sharing systems;
  7. cloud or vendor dependencies;
  8. accessibility requirements;
  9. digital fallback;
  10. public record control;
  11. cybersecurity and privacy review.

41. No Automation Blind Spot

A high-impact bill shall not be treated as low-risk merely because AI, automation, or digital implementation is not named in the text, where the bill is reasonably likely to be implemented through such systems.

Part 10 — Rights-Impact Review

42. Rights-Impact Review Requirement

Every high-impact bill shall include a rights-impact review.

43. Contents of Rights-Impact Review

The rights-impact review shall assess:

  1. constitutional rights;
  2. statutory rights;
  3. human rights;
  4. privacy;
  5. equality;
  6. liberty;
  7. mobility;
  8. property and livelihood;
  9. procedural fairness;
  10. access to justice;
  11. Indigenous rights and treaty obligations;
  12. democratic participation;
  13. freedom of expression, association, conscience, religion, and assembly where relevant;
  14. affected vulnerable populations;
  15. remedies and safeguards.

44. Justification and Safeguards

Where a bill limits or affects rights, the review shall identify:

  1. public purpose;
  2. necessity;
  3. proportionality;
  4. alternatives considered;
  5. safeguards;
  6. review mechanisms;
  7. sunset or renewal provisions where appropriate.

45. Indigenous Rights and Jurisdiction

Where a bill may materially affect Indigenous rights, treaty rights, Indigenous governments, Indigenous lands, consultation duties, services, data, or governance, the review shall identify the impact, consultation requirements, jurisdictional issues, and safeguards.

46. Procedural Fairness

The review shall identify whether affected persons receive:

  1. notice;
  2. reasons;
  3. opportunity to submit evidence;
  4. meaningful human review;
  5. appeal or remedy;
  6. data correction;
  7. urgent relief where serious harm may occur.

Part 11 — Enforcement, Appeal, Review, and Remedy Review

47. Enforcement Review

Where a bill creates or modifies enforcement, inspection, investigation, penalty, sanction, compliance, or coercive powers, the review shall identify:

  1. enforcement body;
  2. trigger conditions;
  3. powers granted;
  4. limits;
  5. affected persons;
  6. evidence standard;
  7. recordkeeping;
  8. appeal path;
  9. remedy path;
  10. oversight.

48. Appeal and Remedy Review

Every high-impact bill shall identify whether affected persons have access to:

  1. reasons;
  2. review;
  3. appeal;
  4. complaint;
  5. data correction;
  6. urgent relief;
  7. tribunal or court review where applicable;
  8. remedy.

49. No Unreviewable Decision

Where a bill creates a high-impact decision without clear review, appeal, remedy, or oversight, the review shall flag the issue for legislative attention.

50. Remedy Adequacy

The review shall assess whether remedies are practical, timely, accessible, and capable of correcting both individual and systemic error.

Part 12 — Auditability and Recordkeeping Review

51. Auditability Requirement

Every high-impact bill shall be reviewed for auditability.

52. Contents of Auditability Review

The review shall identify whether the bill requires records sufficient to reconstruct:

  1. authority used;
  2. decisions made;
  3. data used;
  4. discretion exercised;
  5. AI or automation involved;
  6. enforcement actions;
  7. reasons;
  8. appeals;
  9. corrections;
  10. expenditures;
  11. implementation progress;
  12. system changes.

53. Public Reporting

The review shall identify whether the bill requires public reporting sufficient to allow legislative, audit, journalistic, civil society, and public scrutiny.

54. Oversight Bodies

The review shall identify whether the bill creates or modifies oversight by auditors, privacy commissioners, human rights bodies, ombuds institutions, regulators, tribunals, courts, legislative committees, inspectors general, or other review bodies.

Part 13 — Implementation Map

55. Implementation Map Requirement

Every high-impact bill shall include an implementation map.

56. Contents of Implementation Map

The implementation map shall identify:

  1. responsible implementing authority;
  2. implementation steps;
  3. regulations required;
  4. guidance required;
  5. staffing required;
  6. training required;
  7. funding required;
  8. procurement required;
  9. digital systems required;
  10. data systems required;
  11. public communication required;
  12. timelines;
  13. dependencies;
  14. risk of delay;
  15. output measures;
  16. feedback loops.

57. Capacity Review

The review shall assess whether the responsible authority has the legal, administrative, technical, financial, data, procurement, and human capacity required to implement the bill.

58. Output Conversion Review

Where a bill promises a public outcome, the review shall identify how legal authority becomes actual output.

For example:

  1. money to capability;
  2. approval to completed project;
  3. eligibility to delivered benefit;
  4. right to enforceable remedy;
  5. data system to corrected decision;
  6. emergency order to restored ordinary administration.

59. Unfunded or Unimplemented Duties

Where a bill creates duties without identified capacity, funding, institutions, or timelines, the review shall flag implementation risk.

Part 14 — Jurisdictional and Federalism Review

60. Jurisdictional Map

Every high-impact bill shall include a jurisdictional map where the bill materially affects federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, Indigenous, private-sector, or international authority.

61. Contents of Jurisdictional Map

The jurisdictional map shall identify:

  1. jurisdictions affected;
  2. authority boundaries;
  3. shared responsibilities;
  4. coordination duties;
  5. potential conflicts;
  6. Indigenous rights or treaty implications;
  7. municipal implementation effects;
  8. private-sector obligations;
  9. cross-border data or enforcement issues;
  10. dispute-resolution or coordination mechanisms.

62. Lawful Throughput

Where a bill affects infrastructure, housing, energy, emergency response, defense, procurement, or other output-critical domains, the review shall distinguish legitimate legal safeguards from avoidable incoherence, delay, uncertainty, or capacity failure.

Part 15 — Failure-Mode Analysis

63. Failure-Mode Analysis Requirement

Every high-impact bill shall include a failure-mode analysis.

64. Failure-Mode Questions

The failure-mode analysis shall ask:

  1. how could the bill fail to achieve its purpose?
  2. how could authority become unclear?
  3. how could discretion become arbitrary?
  4. how could rights be harmed?
  5. how could appeal fail?
  6. how could data be misused?
  7. how could AI or automation amplify harm?
  8. how could implementation fail?
  9. how could the system become unauditable?
  10. how could vendors create lock-in?
  11. how could emergency or temporary powers persist?
  12. how could costs rise without outputs?
  13. how could the system resist correction?
  14. how could affected persons be unable to challenge decisions?

65. Failure-Mode Register

A critical bill shall include a failure-mode register identifying:

  1. failure mode;
  2. triggering condition;
  3. affected population;
  4. likely harm;
  5. severity;
  6. probability;
  7. detectability;
  8. existing safeguard;
  9. missing safeguard;
  10. repair option;
  11. responsible authority;
  12. review date.

66. Red-Team Review

A critical bill shall be subject to red-team review.

Red-team review shall test whether the bill can be misused, evaded, over-expanded, made permanent, automated unsafely, captured by vendors, made unappealable, or implemented in a way that defeats its stated purpose.

Part 16 — Rollback, Sunset, Renewal, and Statutory Review

67. Rollback Review Requirement

Every high-impact bill shall include rollback, sunset, renewal, and statutory review analysis.

68. Contents of Rollback Review

The rollback review shall identify:

  1. whether the bill creates temporary or permanent powers;
  2. whether powers expire;
  3. whether renewal requires review;
  4. whether data systems can be deleted, deactivated, or restricted;
  5. whether digital systems can be decommissioned;
  6. whether emergency or exceptional powers can be ended;
  7. whether harmful implementation can be suspended;
  8. whether affected persons can obtain remedy;
  9. whether public reporting supports correction;
  10. whether statutory review is required.

69. Sunset Clause Review

Where a bill creates high-impact, novel, emergency, experimental, AI-enabled, data-intensive, enforcement-heavy, or rights-limiting powers, the review shall assess whether a sunset clause is required.

70. Statutory Review Clause

A high-impact bill shall include a statutory review clause unless the systems integrity review explains why review is unnecessary.

71. Decommissioning and Transition

Where a bill creates or authorizes a public system, digital system, data system, emergency power, procurement system, or AI system, the review shall identify how the system may be decommissioned, transitioned, repealed, or replaced where necessary.

Part 17 — Citizen-Readable Bill Summary

72. Citizen-Readable Summary Requirement

Every high-impact bill shall include a citizen-readable bill summary.

73. Contents of Citizen-Readable Summary

The summary shall answer:

  1. What problem does this bill try to solve?
  2. What public system does it create or change?
  3. Who is affected?
  4. What powers does it create?
  5. Who gets authority?
  6. What limits apply?
  7. What data may be collected or used?
  8. Will AI, automation, or digital systems likely be used?
  9. What decisions will be made?
  10. Can affected persons get reasons?
  11. Can affected persons appeal or seek review?
  12. Can wrong data be corrected?
  13. How will the system be audited?
  14. How will the law be reviewed?
  15. Can the system expire, roll back, or be repaired?
  16. What are the main risks or unresolved questions?

74. Accessibility

The citizen-readable summary shall be published in accessible format and written in language understandable to non-specialist readers.

75. No Substitute for Legal Text

The citizen-readable summary does not replace the legal text of the bill.

Where conflict exists, the legal text prevails.

The summary exists to improve democratic legibility.

Part 18 — Independent Review and Public Challenge

76. Independent Review

A critical bill shall receive independent review by persons with appropriate expertise in law, public administration, systems engineering, rights, privacy, data governance, cybersecurity, procurement, audit, accessibility, Indigenous rights where relevant, and the affected domain.

77. Public Challenge Process

The responsible legislative sponsor shall establish a process through which legislators, affected persons, civil society, journalists, public servants, auditors, experts, Indigenous governments, public bodies, and other affected parties may submit evidence of legislative system risk.

78. Response to Major Challenges

Where a credible public challenge identifies a major authority gap, rights risk, data-power risk, implementation failure, appeal gap, auditability gap, rollback gap, or public-system failure mode, the responsible legislative sponsor shall respond before final vote or explain why response is not practicable.

79. Minority or Dissenting Views

Where independent reviewers materially disagree, the review may include minority or dissenting views.

A systems review that cannot be challenged is not a democratic review.

Part 19 — Urgent and Emergency Legislation

80. Urgent Legislation

Where urgency prevents full pre-enactment review, a provisional legislative systems integrity review shall be prepared before final vote to the extent practicable.

81. Post-Enactment Review

Where a high-impact bill is enacted under urgent conditions without full review, a full legislative systems integrity review shall be completed within the prescribed period after enactment.

82. Emergency Powers

A bill creating, extending, or modifying emergency powers shall include:

  1. trigger conditions;
  2. rights review;
  3. duration;
  4. renewal procedure;
  5. reporting duties;
  6. appeal or complaint mechanisms where practicable;
  7. emergency data map;
  8. procurement safeguards;
  9. rollback plan;
  10. post-emergency audit.

83. No Permanent Emergency by Accident

Urgent or emergency legislation shall not create permanent powers, permanent data systems, permanent procurement arrangements, or permanent restrictions unless Parliament or the legislature expressly authorizes permanence after review.

Part 20 — Legislative Systems Integrity Office

84. Establishment

A Legislative Systems Integrity Office may be established to support preparation, review, publication, and improvement of legislative systems integrity reviews.

85. Functions

The Office may:

  1. prepare review templates;
  2. support legislative sponsors;
  3. review high-impact classification;
  4. assist committees;
  5. maintain review standards;
  6. publish citizen-readable summaries;
  7. maintain a public register of reviews;
  8. support red-team review;
  9. maintain a clause-pattern library;
  10. maintain a failure-mode library;
  11. support post-enactment evaluation;
  12. train legislative staff in systems-integrity analysis.

86. Independence

The Office shall operate with sufficient independence to provide honest systems analysis while respecting parliamentary privilege, legislative authority, and democratic decision-making.

87. Limits

The Office shall not decide whether a bill should pass.

It shall identify system effects, risks, safeguards, implementation requirements, unresolved questions, and review needs.

Part 21 — Public Register and Dashboard

88. Public Register

The government shall maintain a public register of legislative systems integrity reviews.

89. Contents of Register

The register shall include:

  1. bill title;
  2. responsible legislative sponsor;
  3. high-impact classification;
  4. critical classification where applicable;
  5. review completion status;
  6. citizen-readable summary;
  7. major system maps where publishable;
  8. unresolved risks where publishable;
  9. statutory review date;
  10. post-enactment evaluation date where applicable.

90. Legislative Systems Dashboard

The government shall maintain a dashboard identifying:

  1. high-impact bills reviewed;
  2. critical bills reviewed;
  3. bills with data-power maps;
  4. bills with AI exposure reviews;
  5. bills with rights-impact reviews;
  6. bills with appeal gaps flagged;
  7. bills with rollback gaps flagged;
  8. bills with implementation risks flagged;
  9. bills with statutory review clauses;
  10. post-enactment reviews completed.

Part 22 — Post-Enactment Review

91. Post-Enactment Systems Review

A high-impact Act shall be subject to post-enactment systems review within the prescribed period.

92. Contents of Post-Enactment Review

The post-enactment review shall assess:

  1. whether the Act achieved its public purpose;
  2. whether implementation matched the implementation map;
  3. whether authority operated as expected;
  4. whether rights impacts occurred;
  5. whether appeal and remedy worked;
  6. whether data powers expanded;
  7. whether AI or automation was used;
  8. whether auditability was sufficient;
  9. whether public reporting occurred;
  10. whether failure modes occurred;
  11. whether rollback, sunset, or amendment is required.

93. Corrective Legislation

Where post-enactment review identifies serious system failure, the responsible authority shall consider corrective legislation, regulatory amendment, administrative repair, funding change, repeal, sunset, or decommissioning.

Part 23 — Regulations

94. Regulations

The Governor in Council may make regulations:

  1. prescribing high-impact bill categories;
  2. prescribing critical bill categories;
  3. establishing review templates;
  4. establishing timing requirements;
  5. establishing citizen-readable summary requirements;
  6. establishing clause map standards;
  7. establishing data-power map standards;
  8. establishing AI exposure review standards;
  9. establishing failure-mode register standards;
  10. establishing dashboard indicators;
  11. establishing post-enactment review standards;
  12. exempting bills where equivalent or stronger review exists.

95. No Regulation May Defeat Purpose

No regulation made under this Act shall defeat the purpose of ensuring that high-impact legislation is visible, mapped, reviewable, auditable, appealable, implementable, reversible where appropriate, and democratically legible before enactment.

Part 24 — Statutory Review and Coming into Force

96. Statutory Review

A committee of Parliament shall review this Act within three years after coming into force and every five years thereafter.

The review shall examine:

  1. whether the Act improves legislative clarity;
  2. whether it improves public understanding;
  3. whether it improves rights review;
  4. whether it improves data-power visibility;
  5. whether it improves AI and automation exposure review;
  6. whether it improves implementation planning;
  7. whether it improves appeal, remedy, auditability, and rollback design;
  8. whether it creates unnecessary legislative burden;
  9. whether amendments are required.

97. Coming into Force

This Act comes into force on a day fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

Different provisions may come into force on different days.

Schedule A — Legislative Systems Integrity Review Template

A legislative systems integrity review shall include:

  1. bill title;
  2. responsible sponsor;
  3. high-impact classification;
  4. critical classification where applicable;
  5. public purpose map;
  6. authority map;
  7. clause map;
  8. affected-person map;
  9. rights-impact review;
  10. data-power map;
  11. AI and automation exposure review;
  12. digital implementation review;
  13. enforcement review;
  14. appeal and remedy review;
  15. auditability review;
  16. implementation map;
  17. jurisdictional map;
  18. failure-mode analysis;
  19. rollback and sunset review;
  20. citizen-readable summary;
  21. unresolved issues for legislators.

Schedule B — Clause Map Template

A clause map shall identify:

  1. clause number;
  2. clause text summary;
  3. legal function;
  4. power created or modified;
  5. duty created or modified;
  6. discretion created or modified;
  7. affected authority;
  8. affected persons;
  9. data power created;
  10. enforcement effect;
  11. review or remedy effect;
  12. implementation dependency;
  13. related clauses;
  14. related existing law;
  15. failure mode;
  16. repair option.

Schedule C — Data-Power Map Template

A data-power map shall identify:

  1. data category;
  2. collection authority;
  3. use authority;
  4. sharing authority;
  5. affected persons;
  6. sensitive data;
  7. secondary use;
  8. AI or automation use;
  9. vendor access;
  10. retention;
  11. correction pathway;
  12. deletion or de-identification;
  13. audit logs;
  14. public reporting;
  15. privacy safeguards.

Schedule D — AI Exposure Review Template

An AI exposure review shall answer:

  1. Does the bill expressly authorize AI or automation?
  2. Does the bill imply digital implementation?
  3. Does the bill create data powers likely to support AI?
  4. Does the bill create decisions likely to be automated?
  5. Who is affected?
  6. What human review exists?
  7. Can affected persons receive reasons?
  8. Can affected persons appeal?
  9. Can data be corrected?
  10. Are audit trails required?
  11. Can the system be suspended or rolled back?
  12. Is a public registry required?

Schedule E — Failure-Mode Register Template

A failure-mode register shall identify:

  1. failure mode;
  2. clause or system element involved;
  3. triggering condition;
  4. affected population;
  5. likely harm;
  6. severity;
  7. probability;
  8. detectability;
  9. existing safeguard;
  10. missing safeguard;
  11. repair option;
  12. responsible authority;
  13. review date.

Schedule F — Citizen-Readable Bill Summary Template

A citizen-readable bill summary shall answer:

  1. What problem does this bill try to solve?
  2. What system does it create or change?
  3. Who is affected?
  4. Who gets new authority?
  5. What limits apply?
  6. What data may be used?
  7. Will AI, automation, or digital systems likely be involved?
  8. What decisions will be made?
  9. How can affected persons get reasons?
  10. How can affected persons appeal?
  11. How can wrong data be corrected?
  12. How will the system be audited?
  13. How will the law be reviewed?
  14. Can the system expire, roll back, or be repaired?
  15. What are the main unresolved risks?

Final Standard

The Legislative Systems Integrity Act exists because democratic lawmaking should see the system before it creates the system.

A bill should not hide its machinery.

A legislature should know what powers it is creating.

Citizens should know what system will govern them.

Public servants should know what they must implement.

Courts, auditors, tribunals, journalists, civil society, and affected persons should be able to reconstruct how authority flows.

Clean lawmaking does not remove politics.

It improves political judgment.

The standard is simple:

Do not pass high-impact laws without seeing the public system they will create.

 

Project Page: AI Does Not Fix Government. It Amplifies It (Part 1) https://x.com/SkillsGapTrain/status/2065348053645861271

Disclaimer: This is an open-source educational system that is being developed for learning, research, frontier systems engineering and prototyping, intended to help students, teachers, public-sector builders, policy analysts, political leaders, corporate leaders and responsible organizations explore next-generation governance systems for humanity; it is not legal advice, policy authority, certification, or deployment-ready public infrastructure. Executive Summary of Audit of current development status is located at bottom of Part 3 of Project Page.

Scroll to Top