I would add that because the word “person” is there, I would automatically assume it includes the crown. If it's not meant to include the crown, it would be a useful amendment to say that the crown can be liable.
Again, if you move to a necessity standard.... There was the question earlier about what happens with the civil servant who is worried about misjudging that line in terms of sharing information, so it seems useful to keep some provision to say that a good-faith interpretation of this isn't going to get you into trouble, as a way of maintaining a higher threshold, rather than having some kind of dual notion or keeping relevance.
I think this is a serious issue to clarify with respect to whether the government is trying to get out of liability, because then people are just thinking, “Oh, you want to make sure there's not another Arar”, but that's horrible, right? What happens if the same situation arises?