A number of these definitions are carried over. Some of them are new. There is always the question as to whether a definition like this will go further than the particular area in which it is introduced. I do not want to delay the Committee with an analysis of it here, but may we take it that these definitions are strictly in intention meant to apply to sections 33 and 49 as stated, and that it would be unlikely that there would be anything there that could influence other parts of the Bill in a way not covered by that intention?

Subsection (1) clearly states that the definitions apply for the interpretation of sections 33 to 49 and section 50.

Sometimes confining is not leak-proof from a legal point of view.