sure, sure - and you believe a self-isolation plan is a guarantee. In any case, your limited analysis somehow failed to tie in the significance of why these isolation plan requirements are now coming forward in the ever changing dynamics at play - you know, the anticipated "surge" of returning snowbirds that chose not to follow the early March federal directive/suggestion to return home (a return that required a 14-day self-isolation).
Did you even read the link I posted? People openly breaking the quarantine act in a RCMP jurisdiction and all they can say is they are developing protocols FFS. Can you name even a single charge that has been made under it?
Returning snowbirds my ass, 90% of them were back by the 23rd of March because they had been informed their out of country medical insurance would no longer be in effect ten days after the Government travel warning was issued on the 13th. Self included.
When it comes to borders and ports, the federal government has been a follower, not a leader.
presumed (or real) enforcement issues reflect upon policing, not the government that has provided an enforceable order. Like I said, an isolation plan isn't any guarantee that those directed/accepted to self-isolate... will; which, of course, then puts the emphasis back on enforcement. And you thought you were actually making some kind of point?
as for snowbirds, it aligns with the concerns I'm reading about the 10% (say 30,000-to-40,000) of them set to return (now returning) you didn't follow the March federal directive - a/the range figure large enough to have prompted the recent federal update (and B.C. enactment) to provide border agents an alternative option over quarantine... one to allow self-isolation, if a proper supporting plan to do is, as scrutinized by border agents, is accepted. So good on ya with your 90% figure - to correlate with my 10% reference - good on ya!