Right. That's essentially what I'm saying: if we have treaty rights, and we create new obligations on top of those treaty rights, we're essentially abrogating those treaties or are at least fundamentally modifying them. And that can't be done, because the treaties are now entrenched in the Constitution.
We don't necessarily have to go through the amendment system of seven provinces that require 50%. It is a federal jurisdiction, so there are possibly other ways to do this. But I don't think a private member's bill is the correct vehicle.