Particularly when natural immunity comes for "free" and apparently works better, at that point insisting on vaccines for everybody is just completely nonsensical.

Rather shift resources to testing to get costs for that down, which is more work, but also doesn't come with the risk of later discovering "Oops, this vaccine that made people filthy rich turned out to have some nasty long-term side-effects!".

Which is also a very real possibility, considering they've been developed and approved in record time with the population at large acting as subjects for the first non-clinical trials.

The prophylactic costs less than the diagnostic. It has negligible risk of harm. It's a determinable and unambiguous event, unlike trying to verify a possible infection and sustained immune response.

The obvious rational policy decision for public health is to mandate the vaccine for everyone.

Those not previously infected gain immunity. Those previously infected ... either get a not-strictly-necessary injection, or far more likely, a useful booster.

And the administration, diagnostic, and monitoring costs are far lower.

Quebec is the only province that will let you get only 1 dose of the vaccine, instead of 2, if you were previously infected. With that 1 dose, that's enough to have access to the vaccine passport.

But there are absolutely no places in Canada that accepts prior infection as being fully vaccinated.

My comment was not intended to be an argument against any testing for pre-infection; I think the rationale for that is pretty solid, but I think that the regulatory establishment needs to be prepared to inform people that they might not be able to prove their previous infection and in that case they should get vaccinated.