For the benefit of the group, I would like to explain that the only person who can lift the in camera status is the one benefiting from its protection.
I am going to give you an example that was in the news in Quebec. It will not mean anything to colleagues from other provinces, but it does, nevertheless, clearly illustrate Canada's two solitudes.
A young singer, Nathalie Simard, was sexually assaulted by her manager, Guy Cloutier, when she was between 8 and 10 years of age. During the legal proceedings, her name was never mentioned. There were rumours, discussions in the hallways, but no one ever mentioned her name. It was the singer herself who "came out of the closet", to use a popular expression, to discuss that she had been the victim. So in that way, she was the one who lifted the in camera status.
The possibility of going in camera exists first and foremost to protect witnesses and evidence, and only those witnesses can say that they do not require that protection and state it. For example, a witness may appear here in camera and upon leaving grant an interview to Tim Naumetz. Technically, if the witness does not need the protection he or she has been provided, the committee could not be held responsible. The witness may repeat publicly what he or she said in camera, but the in camera status is ultimately there to protect the witness.