Prompt payment legislation Is first Canadian initiative heading to limbo because of confrontation between residential developers and trade contractors? Canadian Design and Construction Report Did an initiative to implement Canada's first prompt payment legislation reach a dead-end because of a con- frontation between representatives of trade contractors and residential developers at a Sept. 19 meeting co-or- dinated by an Ontario provincial parliament member? The answer is uncertain because most people who attended the meeting organized by Vaughn MPP Steven Del Duca are either remaining silent or issuing careful, politically correct statements. However, there are clues that something went off the rails, based on not-for-attri- bution observations from some people at the gathering and on-record comments by Jeff Koller, industry compli- ance officer of the Ontario Construction Finishing Al- liance (OCFA) and Hugh Laird, executive director of the Interior Systems Contractors Association (ISCA), who have been advocating for the bill. The draft legislation, if passed, would have been 10 – Winter 2014 — The Canadian Design and Construction Report Canada's first prompt payment legislation and a signifi- cant success for the National Trade Contractors Coalition of Canada (NTCCC), following successes for similar leg- islation in several U.S. states and internationally. Del Duca introduced the private member's Bill 69 in the spring after a diversity of industry groups and asso- ciations expressed support for the legislation to estab- lish a clear set of payment deadlines and consequences (including work stoppages) if sub-trade invoices aren't settled in a timely manner. Things seemed to be moving well, although represen- tatives of the home building and heavy (road/sewer) con- struction communities expressed concerns that the legislation didn't properly accommodate their sectors' specific practices. Del Duca and others believed these concerns could be remedied at the committee stage – but by late October, trade contractors were growing con- cerned about the lack of progress and the fact that no committee hearings had been scheduled.