I can tell you what the bill does as it's currently written with the words “dependent contractor” in there. Essentially, the wording is there to clarify to the reader that we're using an undefined term at the beginning of proposed paragraph 94(4)(b), which is “contractor”. If you were reading the code as a person wanting to apply the law, you might think the word “contractor” includes dependent contractors. However, as I mentioned earlier, under the definitions of the code, dependent contractors are explicitly employees.
The rationale for having the words “other than a dependent contractor” there is to avoid confusing the reader as to whether these provisions are treating dependent contractors as contractors or employees.
To be consistent with the rest of part 1 of the Canada Labour Code, they should be treated as employees. This is just to say, “We've used the word 'contractor', but, to be clear, that does not include dependent contractors, because they're under it as employees.”
That's the intent of that wording.