Unification: The Right Path for CGAs‏? Email to CGAC from a member -janeyeee(jane) @SF湾区华人论坛:SF湾区枫下论坛 The Rolia Forum of San Francisco

Why I AGAINST the CGA Canada integration. -janeyeee(jane); 2013-9-20 {7877} (#75036@41)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Blake Mercer (external) (blake@mercerandmercer.com)
Add to contacts
11:02 PM

I sat as a director of CGA Ontario for seven years; was Chair of the Board of Directors for CGA Ontario from June 2011 to June 2012 and left the Board this past June. During my term on the Board and specifically during my term as vice-Chair and Chair of the Board, I was one of the people most closely tied to discussions – certainly at the Ontario level; and to a lesser degree at the National level. I participated in many, many meetings with our affiliates; our National body; representatives of the ICAO, CMAO, the CICA and CMAC. I directly participated in two or three dozen town hall/member forum meetings with members across Ontario.

Based on my direct participation in discussions/negotiations in Ontario and nationally; and my direct involvement in the leadership of CGA Ontario I believe I have a fairly informed opinion about what has transpired over the last three years.

I have sent my proxy vote to CGA Ontario to vote AGAINST the CGA Canada integration.

Being for or against a merger here in Ontario is irrelevant to the question that CGA Canada has posed to its members. One is completely independent of the other (see CGA Quebec and CPA Quebec as an example of this) and a decision to merge at a national level will not compel a merger at the provincial level. To me, the salient points to consider when deciding how to cast your vote are (sorry it’s a bit long, but there are lots of points to consider):

(1) Except for in Quebec, no other provincial jurisdiction has passed legislation legally bringing into force CPA. Some provinces might not have legislation for a long period of time (we’ve all witnessed how “quickly” the wheels of government bureaucracy can move). Why integrate now – when, even though the other provinces are in various stages of formulating a merger, none (except QC) has been legislated? Why hand over all assets of the Association (including a sizable cash reserve resulting from practice insurance premiums) to a body that there are still no guarantees that all affiliates will end up being affiliated with? Why not wait until enabling legislations’ have been put into place before integrating assets? This was actually the position of CGA Canada a year ago? What changed? And this ignores the fact that (see next point)

(2) The largest CGA affiliate (Ontario) plus Manitoba (combined representing more than 50% of CGA Canada members – and with apologies to our colleagues in Quebec – they aren’t CGA Canada members now and haven’t been for some time) is NOT involved in merger discussions at this time. Your largest affiliate and more than 50% of your members are not involved in merger discussions (forget the fact that enabling legislation is not in place elsewhere) and you want to hand over control of your assets to another body (which you don’t control) and trust that they will continue to act in the best interests of your members?

(3) The body that you’re handing your assets over to - CPA Canada - was incorporated; its bylaws approved; it’s governance structure put in place; it’s raison d’être agreed to WITHOUT meaningful input from CGA Canada. With the exception of whatever participation came from legacy CGA Quebec members; some initial input into the CPA education program and input from CGA Alberta; there was no real input by CGA’s into CPA Canada. And you expect to suddenly be able to influence the directions/actions of this body? From my own personal observations, unfortunately I do not expect this to go well – people you deal with in negotiations need to at a minimum respect you and from what I witnessed, our national leaders were not afforded the type of respect I would expect from those they will be dealing with to make me feel secure that whatever they might bring forward would be given due consideration. Don’t forget everyone, we (i.e. all CGA bodies – except Quebec) had to basically force our way into discussions ongoing between CA’s and CMA’s. They didn’t need/want us there initially. Why is that? How truly motivated will they be to act in our interests?

(4) CGA Canada claims that this “is a well thought out strategy that involved unprecedented collaboration from accounting bodies across the country.” Please show me how, excluding provincial discussions, there was unprecedented collaboration at the national level? I certainly didn’t see it during my time at the table.

(5) This national body, that you are entrusting to act in the best interests of your members – who may, OR MAY NOT, have actually merged; will have control over all intellectual property owned by CGA Canada. Why merge now? What’s the rush?

(6) CGA’s are currently represent by only one CGA on the CPA Canada Board – two if you count the fact that of the three board members from Quebec, one is supposed to be a legacy CGA – on a Board of 16 members;

(7) CGA’s will gain only ONE additional seat as a result of this integration proposal

(8) CA’s are, by bylaw, required to have no LESS than 50% of the Board seats;

(9) Just one month ago, our national leaders were attempting to pass a bylaw that would have PREVENTED you as a member from even taking part in this vote. Why? Their claim of that being in the name of “good governance” in my opinion is laughable.

(10) There have been NO public consultations with members; forums; town halls with members across the country with respect to selling us on the benefits of approving this integration. Have you seen the CGA Canada CEO, Chair of the Board or any other representative stepping out in front of the general membership to discuss this? Using Twitter, LinkedIn and a couple of e-mails is not sufficient. Not even a webinar?

(11) The last e-mail that came from CGA Canada attempts to paint them as bringing this to the members to vote, as opposed to CGA Ontario NOT bringing anything to the members to vote on. Spin at its best. As the leaders of CGA Canada are WELL aware, the ICAO had absolutely no real interest in discussing/negotiating what were and still are reasonable solutions to get around member concerns over a lack of trust of the Institute and a lack of respect of our members. Ensuring that our members would be treated equally with a merged body was/is a paramount concern for CGA Ontario. Our members asked for that, the ICAO was not prepared to give that. The deal the CMA’s got was a result of essentially throwing up their hands and saying, please take us. Is that displaying leadership? Is that acting in the best interests of your members? Perhaps in their case it was given their situation. For CGA Ontario members, the Board (in my opinion) rightfully decided it wasn’t. But for CGA Canada to, in my opinion, attempt to spin this as a positive in their favour is disgraceful.

What is the rush CGA Canada? Why suddenly now is it imperative that you integrate with CPA Canada? Will your ability to influence really change if you wait?

Earlier posters have asked for a fair/balanced weighing of the pro’s and con’s about integrating CGA Canada now. I won’t be the one to provide that as I don’t believe there are any pro’s/benefits to me as a member or to you as a member in having CGA Canada integrate. Your mobility is NOT impacted. Your ability to get a CPA should you desire is NOT impacted. Why integrate now?

I’m going to stop my list there, but if anyone cares or is interested in discussing this further, I will be at the practitioner’s conference tomorrow (Friday) and would be more than happy to talk more there.

Blake Mercer, FCGA, C.Dir

Licensed Public Accountant
Mercer & Mercer, Certified General Accountants
Licensed Public Accountants

905-876-1144
blake@mercerandmercer.com
mail@mercerandmercer.com更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

Whoever wants to win this argument, please, at least, try to understand the topic first. -jinx99(FAPI); 2013-9-20 (#75048@41)

Unification: The Right Path for CGAs‏? Email to CGAC from a member -janeyeee(jane); 2013-9-20 {4819} (#75052@41)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Dear Association Secretary:

Thank you for your email discussing the integration agreement issues.

Integration, as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "to end the segregation of and bring into equal membership...in an organization". You have indicated that CGAs in Ontario have access to "Affiliate" membership status. From reading the ICAO site, I understand that existing CAs will have "Associate" membership status. Holding a different class of membership (Affiliate versus Associate) based on originating designation does not seem equal to me, and quite frankly, with all the information coming at me from both CGA Canada and CGA Ontario, I'm quite confused about this entire issue.

I understand that the two classes will allow for differentiation of titles used - ie CPA-CA and CPA-CGA - but what other differences do these membership classes have (or could they have in the future)? From emails sent by CGA Ontario, my understanding is that the protection of our rights is still at issue, and that there are inconsistencies from province to province in implementation of legacy designations, for example. That doesn't sound very unified to me.

Your point that CPA Canada will be "the voice of Canada's accounting profession" would be exciting to me if I could be guaranteed a place within that organization on equal footing with all other members, but I am not convinced that CGAs, especially those of us in Ontario, would actually be a part of that "voice" if CGAs continue to be differentiated from CAs under the CPA umbrella by having separate membership classes.

As a proud CGA member, I am frustrated at the lack of unification within our own organization right now. Since CGA Canada and CGA Ontario apparently have differing opinions as to what is best for me, I am concerned with how my rights will be protected on an even larger scale if CGA Canada proceeds with the agreement before ensuring that ALL members will be protected. I certainly can see myself being a proud CPA member, but only if my place within the organization is guaranteed to be equal, not subpar, to fellow members. As part of the research I have been doing on this issue, I've found some very disturbing comments online about how CGAs will "dilute" the CA designation, and that the CA designation is more "prestigious" - this type of thinking must be protected against if a merger is to be successful - allowing any type of "us versus them" mentality to perpetuate will defeat the purpose of unification, and my concern is that segregation by class of membership would allow that differentiation to continue.

In my opinion, CGA Canada would be wise to put the integration agreement on hold until a united front from all CGA members across Canada can be established. I am all for unification, as long as the true meaning of the word can be met, and CGAs can stand on equal ground with all other CPA designated accountants, without fear of being outnumbered by a different class of membership. I can understand that different classes of CPA designations might be necessary to distinguish between LPA and non-LPAs, and could even understand legacy tags for a period of time, but to segregate membership classes outright based on prior designation status simply does not seem equal to me - the same segregation that existed before the CPA designation will just continue.

I'm sorry if I'm oversimplifying the problem, but if we are going to proceed with unification, then I think it needs to truly unite us. With so much information coming at me from both CGA Canada and CGA Ontario, it's really difficult to determine if true unification is likely to happen with this integration agreement or not, and it's been really hard to weed through fact, fiction and fear.

If my understanding of the differentiation that I believe will continue amongst current CA and CGA designations within Ontario is incorrect, I would certainly appreciate any clarification that you can provide. For example, do these different classes of membership exist in other provinces? Will it be possible for these different classes of membership to be used against us in the future, giving different rights to different membership classes for example?

Thanks in advance for any further clarification you can provide, and I appreciate you taking the time to read through my lengthy email.

With best regards,

Lynne Forgette, CGA

Lynne Forgette, B.Comm., CGA

Certified General Accountant

20 Westmeath Crescent

Kanata ON K2K 3B1

Tel: 613-271-0683

Fax: 613-691-1145

lynne@forgette.ca
www.forgette.ca更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

A Student's Perspective -janeyeee(jane); 2013-9-20 {6810} (#75060@41)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Hello.

My name is Brian Hlady, and I am enrolled in the Advanced Level of the CGA Program of Professional Studies. I am employed as a Staff Accountant by a CA, who understands and respects the level of work we’re committed to, and makes me feel as a valued member of the team.

I am asking you to vote no, because while I have a lot at stake, as a student, I don’t have a voice or a vote.

As I understand from statements made by CGAO, they would support unification, under the right conditions. Those conditions being contractual support of legacy rights for minority members. It is my understanding that through negotiations, they have not been able to secure this, and that negotiating conditions have not materially changed since they left the table. If this is the case, then do you continue to beat your head against the wall until it feels good, or do you say, no perhaps not and find a different path to take?

Yes, CPAC has assured the protection of legacy rights in their bylaws, but the profession is regulated provincially. And any merger agreements must be made provincially. New Brunswick's agreement lists key decisions requiring high threshold (80%) for approval in section 9.1.3. Alberta's is different, but lists prohibited activities. Specifically this sections protect legacy member rights, and prevent discrimination. If these points are models for other provinces, and seem to be in line with the intent of CPAC, why is Ontario unable to get these same, contractual, commitments? I've as yet not seen the same document for ICAO/CMAO, or CGAC for that matter.

If CGAO has refused to come back to the table due to pride and hubris, then the Board should be held accountable. Now, if there is no point in returning to the table because there has been no material change in positions; one side says contract, the other side says best principles and would make a majority of the board. To me, it would seem that through the lens of distant and recent history, best principles may result in minority rights being harmed. After all, this fight really only matters to accountants. The public basically sees us as auditors or someone to do their taxes, or for those in industry, people who used to be auditors or did taxes, and are good with Excel. So, if CGA unifies and gets stepped on, there will be no public outcry. With that in mind, CGAO has a duty to its members to negotiate a contractual commitment that will protect them and if they cannot negotiate, what should they do?

To do nothing will result in the eventual extinction of the designation, and the CGAO board would not be fulfilling its duties. To attempt to go back to table, and accept whatever is offered would be the triumph of hope over the experience in this province, and would not result in the protection of existing members. Again, the Board would have failed in its duties. Perhaps binding arbitration is required, but this might require the support and pressure of all provincial and national affiliates to bring about. Certainly with the fragmentation we're now seeing, that won't be the case. As an aside, I think this underscores the major issue with the accounting profession in Canada - we're 35+ separate provincial bodies each with our own view, and nobody really in control. Even after any unification, this issue still exists but we've cut the size of the table to 10.

Still, CGAO and CGAM need to work to protect their members, and this, I think defies a simple question. The world is not black or white, and anybody who has obtained their C_A designation has to analyse a case, present options and their opinion. In fact, most people in a knowledge worker role have done the same. Perhaps the survey previously offered was poorly designed (or well designed depending on intent), and new survey should be offered. To distill it down to yes or no, and ignore the maybes or conditions would not offer a true representative answer nor would it give the board any latitude in any negotiations.

So, given a provincial history of mistrust, a recent direction of requiring contractual guarantees at the provincial level of minority rights, seemingly being unable to obtain them, and having a different view from the other 10 affiliates, what should be done?

Perhaps then what is required now is for CGAO and CGAC to go their separate ways, and pursue other alternatives which would protect their members rights as they see fit. And the practical result of this split is that the CGA designation will go extinct. CGAC will become CPAs and CGAO will become something different or be swallowed up.

And maybe including CGAs in any province in unification is ill-advised, full stop. Seeing the CAs and CMAs merge is making people afraid. After all when one see all of their peers getting together, it’s natural stop and wish to be part of that group. Or worse, that a future outside that group is cold, miserable and lonely. The danger here is undercutting the value of the CGA designation, and allowing ourselves to feel like we’re second class accountants. Perhaps that goal that is being fought for, really isn’t worthwhile. Perhaps unification isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be, and CGAs should bid the others all the success they deserve in their partnership, and continue on our own as a strong, respected designation.

CGA has a lot to offer – I came to accounting as a second career after spending time in high-tech doing non-accounting things. I chose CGA because I don’t have a degree, and taking three or four years to complete the necessary prerequisites for a university degree was not feasible. But taking 8 months to complete the Foundation Level through Algonquin College’s Professional Accounting program was – I quit my job in January of 2010, completed the necessary courses and by October 2010, I was working as Staff Accountant. I entered into the CGA program of professional studies shortly thereafter, and it has not been a cake walk. Anybody who can endure the program has no place being thought of as a second class accountant.

If I had known what I wanted to be when I grow up, maybe I would have completed a B.Comm when I was 23 years old, had no other responsibilities, and become a CA. I didn't, and have been able to change. I’m 37 now, have a mortgage to pay, kid on the way and I need to contribute to my RRSP. Because of the CGA program, I can work full-time while working towards my designation. Given the educational model under CPA, we would not have been able to make that same choice. Having options is a wonderful thing.

You have options. You have a voice. You have a vote. I ask you to vote no.

Sincerely,

Brian K. Hlady

Student enrolled in the Advanced Level of the CGA Program of Professional Studies更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

This again is a good voice. Questions are good: -rolialover(小快-SmallBizPros); 2013-9-20 {292} (#75077@41)
Why is Ontario unable to get these same, contractual, commitments? I've as yet not seen the same document for ICAO/CMAO, or CGAC for that matter.

CGAO has a duty to its members to negotiate a contractual commitment that will protect them and if they cannot negotiate, what should they do?
compromise - stand-down‏ -janeyeee(jane); 2013-9-20 {2371} (#75111@41)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Dear colleagues

I have had a long discussion with a fellow CGA who is a well-known contributor to CGAO and the profession for several decades. He informed me of his concerns as an LPA in respect to the CGAC merger agreement.

I respect his opinion and accept his concerns as reasonable in the circumstances.

To eliminate any further acrimony in this discussion I choose to withdraw my unequivocal support for CGAC’s merger agreement. I do so in deference to my CGA public practice colleagues who are also concerned with uncertainty in the legal terms proposed in the merger document that, as I now understand, may not have been provided to CGAO’s board. I wouldn’t enter an agreement without a document or legal advice. I would not countenance our CGAO Board entering an agreement without legal advice. CGAO Board may consider offering it’s agreement in principle subject to legal advice to mitigate the unknowns that have arisen in this discussion. In particular:

1) CGAC merger agreement should be accepted in principle, subject to due diligent review and opinion by legal counsel and membership (CGAO) vote, and

2) CGAO members – LPA or otherwise – should be accorded the same rights as would be permitted to our CGA colleagues in other provinces that had agreed to CGAC’s merger with CPA-Canada.

I highly recommend that those who also considered voting in favour of the merger to reconsider standing-down until further legal advice can be released to our Board and membership. Our distinguished and esteemed colleagues may be affected negatively in the absence of clear and unequivocal terms of agreement. And the CGAO Board needs sufficient time to seek the advice of legal counsel. Clearly, it is not prudent and morally unsound to accept a merger when our LPA colleagues may possibly be denied their pubic practice rights in the proposed merger – without clear language and terms that specifically guarantee those rights.

I will stand-down and not vote in favour of this merger deal until my colleagues are assured equal rights that would otherwise be accorded under the AIT or to members of CGA affiliates in the rest of Canada.

Thank you for your attention and further consideration. Bob

Robert Aceti BA | Certified General Accountant (ret.)

49 Sheaffe Street | Hamilton ON L8R 2E8 | Cell 416-998-6120更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

This is a good letter. -rolialover(小快-SmallBizPros); 2013-9-20 (#75075@41)

Thanks for sharing this - very well addressed the concerns/confusions around CGAC's proposed integration resolution. -baisuzhen(livingw/imperfection); 2013-9-20 (#75062@41)
What is going to be the next step for CGAO? What do we really want in order to agree the merger? Why other provinces CGA entered into the discussion? -sls66(littlestone); 2013-9-20 (#75067@41)

It's all about interests, and sometimes the interests of the management do not align with the interests of the members. -wrongway(歧途); 2013-9-20 (#75068@41)

I have absolutely no idea what you mean. CGAO is a team during the merger process, we choose our leaders and we fight for our interests together. -jinx99(FAPI); 2013-9-20 (#75071@41)

It is not fighting. It is about give and take. -wrongway(歧途); 2013-9-20 (#75073@41)

做会计，说话要有明确的观点和论据，要有points。能不这么讲空话吗？毕竟我只是个会计不是哲学家。你要不要fight，不是你能做主的，take什么give什么区别大了. -jinx99(FAPI); 2013-9-21 (#75114@41)

Same name and same rights fromt the first day of merger, or there is no merger at all! -jinx99(FAPI); 2013-9-20 (#75070@41)

不得不断章取义地讲一句, 作者作为一个LPA, 写了很多情绪话的语句, 真不是篇有说服力的好文章, 只能说, 是篇赚眼球的引文让大家多讨论, 或者说, 他把CGA ON和CGA National的矛盾, 向广大不关心政治的会员公开化. -rolialover(小快-SmallBizPros); 2013-9-20 {1730} (#75072@41)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛IMO, 作者行文间知道合并是大势所趋, 但不明白"Why is so rush, why now?" (这人是真不懂还是假不懂, 我很怀疑), 他一方面知道政府立法过程是很慢的, 一方面又要利用"legislation", 告诉各位CGA会员们, "No legislation to force forming CPA", 所以我们可以再等等, 不要急, 把我们会员的利益问题先搞搞清楚.// 把会员利益问题搞清楚没有问题, 那他在这篇"WHY"文章里也应该写清楚CGA ON这个组织, 多少会员费来自于学生成员(CGA 1- PACE level), 多少来自于designated CGA? 在designated CGA中, 多少LPA? 然后再看一下, 你要CGA ON代表的是众多学生成员的利益, 还是LPA的利益, 还是designated CGA的利益?

还有, 他说CGA’s will gain only ONE additional seat on the board, why is that? CA’s 50%, why is that? 这不应该是hostile takeover的证据吧?

还有, 他说"The deal the CMA’s got was a result of essentially throwing up their hands and saying, please take us. Is that displaying leadership? Is that acting in the best interests of your members? ", 作为一个对CMA ON也谈不上太多好感的CMA, 不得不说一句, 即使”throwing up hands and saying, please take us”, 也不能不说CMA ON就没有displaying leadership, CMA ON只有4%会员从事的是和CA相类似的工作, CMA 的课程设计同CA的课程设计相互弥补, 他们合并的课程肯定更有国际竞争力, 对广大会员的确更有益, 如果CMA因为那个4%, 必须占少于50%的席位, 那么CMA正是放弃了自己的ego需求, 展示了真正的leadership.

最后, 让我们小民讲利益, 我们为什么要加入组织? 一个是看重它的”branding power”, 给我们一个就业市场, CPA, CXA是个不错的选择, 为什么CGA ON不同意呢?第二个会员费经济不经济, 自我参加了CMA, 我全家的汽车保险是省了很大一笔, 当然我每年在调查表上总是写一句学费会员费太贵, 其他的什么voice不voice, 能力到了就会有voice, 能力不到, voice不出个什么东西, 只能请人做代表, 有什么问题吗? 我是看不出什么问题. //其他的利益嘛, 内什么, 爱谁谁…更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

我倒是觉得他提出的问题非常好，起到了赚眼球的效果就达到了他的目的，让更多的会员关心此事件并参与讨论。至于CGAO跟CGAC的矛盾，不早就公开化了嘛，我相信再不关心政治的会员也应该知道了吧！说实话，彻底两耳不闻窗外事的CGA还真对不住这个头衔。 -baisuzhen(livingw/imperfection); 2013-9-20 {913} (#75085@41)
加拿大的会计行业都是各省自立山头，在安省还没回到谈判桌之前，我看不出来national主动合并有什么意义？作为安省的CGA，CGAO一天不加入，我一天就拿不到CPA，CGAC鼓噪半天承诺这个答应那个有什么用？说到个人利益，举个极端的例子，虽然目前谁（包括CPAO）也说不清楚这个affiliate member和associate member在将来有何权利义务的区别，不过，CA把持了CPAO BOARD的话语权，这个得慎重，CPAO要削弱affiliate class的利益太容易了。我不希望将来的某一天被告知：想继续保持CPA头衔的legacy CGA和CMA们，对不起，你得重新re-qualify，请考UFE。what u gonna do? 包括那个name tagging requirement，CA完全可以通过操纵board proxy把10年期限延长至终身，以示永久区别。作为一个傲娇的CGA，那我跟你合并个头啊？要合并，双方都得放下身段不是。CPAO得有个比较诚恳的姿态，比如制定基本原则，对affiliate member权利的触动必须要经过绝大多数会员通过才行，等等。。。否则以我一个在corporate area混的CGA都有这些concern，跟不要说在public practice的弟兄们了，那利害关系直接关乎饭碗

我不是CGA会员, 不清楚历史问题, 不清楚CGAC和CGAO矛盾, 我相信这里的很多移民也不清楚这些问题. 楼下的同学已经讲了, 转来转去, 也不知道affiliate和associate区别, 所以我只是站在会员的角度, 要求把这些问题先搞清楚, -rolialover(小快-SmallBizPros); 2013-9-20 {830} (#75094@41)
全文没有帮助大家搞清问题, 反倒非常情绪化, 没有看见事实和critical thinking, 他vote NO的原因不令人信服, 还不如另外一篇vote NO的学生文章写出了concern, 写出了原因.

至于你说的”想继续保持CPA头衔的legacy CGA和CMA们，对不起，你得重新re-qualify，请考UFE”, 我只是想说, 至少CMA是给我们讲清楚了, 已经拿到designation的没有re-qualify的问题, 准备读SLP的, 旧的qualification标准截止到什么时候, 新的什么时候开始, 所以我作为CMA没有和你类似的perceptions of causalities. 至于话语权的问题, 那我们会计的都懂吧, 主要是拼$$$, CGAO为什么不愿意交$$$, 是站在广大会员的利益上不交$$$呢, 还是自身利益? 是为广大会员的长远利益考虑呢, 还是短期利益?

我道听途说, 听说CGA 1-PACE level的学生会员占了CGAO收入的大部分, 如果这个情况属实的话, CGAO应该为这些学生争取独立和提供efficient bridging program, 让他们加入团圆的大家庭, 而不要计较于可能的会员收入流失.

这跟移民扯不上半点关系。哦，你不是CGA，那难怪了，不在其位不谋其政。CMA都合并了还没搞清楚不同Class会员的区别，嘿嘿。至于话语权，如果CPAO象你说的可以拿钱买Board席位，那事情反而好办了 -baisuzhen(livingw/imperfection); 2013-9-20 (#75095@41)

你搞清楚了, 你怎么不说呢? 嘿嘿什么? //就算我的理解错了, 请指正. //我是没有听说CMA讲到这个问题. -rolialover(小快-SmallBizPros); 2013-9-20 (#75101@41)

她和Jane已经在好几个贴子里阐明了自己的想法和观点，说的很清楚。我们不清楚CMA是如何解释合并的，但我们自己的问题还是要搞搞清楚的，在所有条款完全明确之前，做会计的是不能随便签字的。 -jinx99(FAPI); 2013-9-21 (#75117@41)

What are the difference between Affiliates and Associates? I read it and it seems only thing is that Affiliates cannot use the describe themselves as Chartered Accountants, but can describe themselves as CPAs. -rolialover(小快-SmallBizPros); 2013-9-20 {43} (#75106@41)
I really don't see anything wrong with it.

你这些问题，是不是应该在CMA和CA合并之前搞清楚. -jinx99(FAPI); 2013-9-21 (#75116@41)

我说，咱俩都闲大发了，周末大清早的来灌水 -baisuzhen(livingw/imperfection); 2013-9-21 (#75119@41)

我是要马上出门做按摩的，你起那么早干什么？下周一起吃中午饭吧。 -jinx99(FAPI); 2013-9-21 (#75122@41)

我也是要出门按摩去呀！吃饭没问题，下周我有空 -baisuzhen(livingw/imperfection); 2013-9-21 (#75123@41)

the future CPA will have two routes:1) CPA - public accountant route 2) CPA - non-public accountant route -rolialover(小快-SmallBizPros); 2013-9-20 {1610} (#75109@41)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛or that's all routes, CAs, CMAs, CGAs... they can choose public acctg auditing route or industry corporate area. That's why if you read the stuff I listed below, it states that not all CAs can obtain an audit license.

Under CPA's Ontario Membership Handbook:

C Rights and Responsibilities
1. Affiliate members shall have the rights of membership as set out in the Bylaws, and shall have equal access to all services and programs offered by the Institute.
2. Affiliate members are subject to the Institute’s regulatory processes and obligations, including, but not limited to, those set out in the Bylaws and regulations, in the same manner and to the same extent as any other Member.

Public Accounting Licensing Eligibility

Admission to membership in the Institute and the granting of the right to use the designations Chartered Professional Accountant and Chartered Accountant and the initials, CPA, CA, in Ontario does not automatically qualify a member to be licensed as a public accountant. Associate Members of the Institute who seek to be licensed as public accountants must fulfill the specific requirements prescribed by the Public Accountants Council pursuant to the Public Accounting Act, 2004 and by the bylaws and regulations of the Institute.

If Affiliate membership was obtained on the basis of membership in either CGAO or CMAO, then public accounting practice rights must be acquired through and held with CGAO or CMAO, as the case may be, before the Institute will issue a public accounting licence.

From all this research, it seems like all the problems are resolved?更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/cma-ca-cga-merge-discussion-over-again-1176726/15-print/

显然我们看问题的角度很不同： -baisuzhen(livingw/imperfection); 2013-9-21 {1702} (#75118@41)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛1。正是因为谁都不清楚affiliate和associate的区别，所以我认为更有必要搞个明白了再合并。如果权益没有实质上的区别，那为何要把会员分成两个class？我个人的看法，说穿了这还是CA想把自己特殊化，想固定与其他A的区别，name tagging还有个期限，好嘛，这个根本是永久的。在号称unification的CPA，自己内部倒划了个三六九等，实在有违合并的初衷。并且，这种划分为以后CA进一步削弱CGA／CMA的权益留下了制度上的隐患（当然CMA可能不在乎，所以go ahead了），CPA可以针对affiliate会员制定有别于associate的规定。这又回到控制权的老话上。

2。你引用的public accounting一段很好，就是说，合并以后能从事public practice的CGA只能是之前就取得资格的，那对于广大正在奋斗资格的CGA们怎么办？别的省是怎么规定的？据说BC就不同。

3。再说一遍，会计行业是省级规范，CGAO不同意的前提下，national自己去合并没有任何意义，所以CGAC的这个vote非常仓促，使我严重怀疑national那帮人的办事能力和判断力。作为安省的CGA，我交的会费中有一部分是给CGAC的，现在它打算全部移交给CPAO，可我还得不到CPA头衔。我要问一下，why？当然咯，CMAO没遇到过这种问题，不懂也正常，以为这又是啥历史遗留问题，我不怪你们。

4。你现在读到的那些CPAO的章程啦制度啦，貌似很公平，我也看不出有啥问题。但是，CPAO现在大可以承诺一个美好世界，然后全不兑现，怎么办？比如说qualification, 他们又没有邓小平式的人物跳出来说：50年不变！作为CGA，我又不了解那些CA，我不放心就这样红布一盖就跟他们走了。我希望朝中有人给我撑腰，again，又回到控制权的问题了。CPAO哪里规定了不能随便串改affiliate会员利益的条例？或者能对CA控制下的board有牵制的规定？找到的同学麻烦告诉一声。多谢。

5。就Blake M同学本身的文章来说，你不能责怪他只会提问题，没有帮大家搞清问题，因为这些问题连CPAO也搞不清或者不想搞清。但Blake同学提问的价值很好，就是我不想稀里糊涂就合并了。这促使我们去讨论去反映去质疑去了解真相，这是我喜欢的态度。更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

真准备合并，也绝对不需要这么仓促，有什么问题都在签字之前讲清楚，写明白，分两个Class，本身就是不公平待遇，后患无穷，说多好听，都掩盖不了这个事实。 -jinx99(FAPI); 2013-9-21 (#75120@41)

合并对当前CGA STUDENT的影响最大，我建议他们研究一下新的PROGRAM，看看对自己有什么影响，免得走弯路。 -wrongway(歧途); 2013-9-20 (#75098@41)
我猜，cga ontario手里会员比ca+cma全国还多，但是在board只是占1/3地位，所以不服，要求跟股份公司那样。但是ca+cma觉得那不是给cga ontario作嫁衣？所以谈不拢。什么为了会员利益，都是台面话。凭什么cga ontario的会员费要去贴ca+cma，还不能做老大。我也觉得不公平。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-20 (#75105@41)

没什么贴不贴的问题吧! 又不是CMA, CA会员不够, 资金周转不灵, 要靠CGA来撑一把. -rolialover(小快-SmallBizPros); 2013-9-20 (#75108@41)

很明显，CA+CMA没有钱做海外推广。估计会员费仅够cover固定费用。cga ontario凭什么钱出大头，和另外两个平起平坐。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-20 (#75110@41)

更正一下，CAs in Ontario多过 CGAs in Ontario. -wind_morning(风); 2013-9-21 (#75121@41)

ca ontario比cga ontario人数还多，包括已经拿下职称的和正在考得学生，有没有数字出处？ -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75124@41)

你不会把ca+cam ontario都算ca ontario 吧 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75125@41)
ca只能通过会计师事务所，另外两个就业面广多了，自然学生就应该多于ca。希望能看到数字统计。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75126@41)

我原来也以为CGAs Ontario多些。后来和CA头头交流合并的看法，问到CA Ontario的数量才发现他们多一大截。（CA的历史好像早呢）---这就是为什么CGA Ontario反复提到要保护minority的权利的原因。 -wind_morning(风); 2013-9-21 (#75127@41)

CA头头果然把ca+cam ontario都算c（p）a ontario 。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75143@41)

还有个需要帮你更正的是，CA为了增加竞争力和帮助CA students毕业，已经接受非CA firms的工作经验（有一段时间了） ---- 当然是特定的企业。 -wind_morning(风); 2013-9-21 (#75137@41)

据说ca把考试通过率提到到90%，提高什么竞争力不知道，但是提高谈判砝码倒是真的。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75145@41)

CA vs CGA, CA has 36500 members, CGA has 22000 members and 9000 students. -maplefish(鱼之乐); 2013-9-21 {687} (#75130@41)
On CGA Ontario Website:

Certified General Accountants of Ontario (CGA Ontario) is a self-governing body that grants the exclusive rights to the CGA designation and controls the professional standards, conduct and discipline of its 22,000 certified general accountants (CGAs) and 9,000 students in the CGA program of professional studies in the province of Ontario.

On CA Ontario Website:

Public accounting is a core CPA activity and always will be. However, more than two-thirds of Ontario’s almost 36,500 CPAs now practise outside public accounting in positions in businesses of every size (CEOs, CFOs, VPs Finance, etc.), in government, academe or the not-for-profit sector.

谢谢这么有心把数据找出来。从数量上看，CGAs在安省的竞争力一目了然。更不用说，public accounting 这个最重要的 Core不是CGA的传统优势.... -wind_morning(风); 2013-9-21 (#75132@41)

不客气，转行做会计以来，对数字越来越感兴趣了，职业病？最近突然重拾对围棋的兴趣，感觉会计和围棋有相同之处比如对现实的计算和对未来的ASSUMPTION，挺有意思。 -maplefish(鱼之乐); 2013-9-21 (#75133@41)

多少年不下围棋了，你还真有时间呢。是职业病，你写的数字我数了3遍，才写帖子，呵。 -wind_morning(风); 2013-9-21 (#75135@41)

关于10 years Tag 的想法。据个例子：国内高校合并，被名校合并进去的学生应该喜欢用新的学校名字说自己的毕业学校；原来名校的估计都喜欢说是本校的。其实如果你自己认为CGA优秀，加在CPA后面难道不自豪？潜意识让人的感觉是，不自信自己的历史？要不想占人家.... -wind_morning(风); 2013-9-21 (#75134@41)

没看懂这逻辑，且不说你拿CA自比名校，难道其他A就不是名校？再说这name tag，反对它的原因是这违背了合并的宗旨，既然平等合并，那大家都该放弃各自引以为傲的头衔，都是CPA。至于要想占那啥的，这有点xx之心了吧，人CGAO不都摆明态度不谈判了，够自豪了吧！ -baisuzhen(livingw/imperfection); 2013-9-21 (#75147@41)

两个协会对degree的要求一样吗？ -wind_morning(风); 2013-9-21 (#75164@41)
你要这样理解有你的理由。这个比喻的目的只是想说每个协会会员对自己的历史有自己的认识，因为很多方面的要求是不同的，市场对3个协会定位也是不一样的。另外，CGAO为何退出谈判后要和ACCA合作？ -wind_morning(风); 2013-9-21 (#75169@41)

合纵连横。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75170@41)

TW 也经常干这事。 -wind_morning(风); 2013-9-21 (#75171@41)

那是ca用行政手段垄断而已。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75144@41)

小小的安省，1000多万人口，三大组织这么多会员加学员，这是ＤＥＳＧＩＮＡＴＩＯＮ贬值的时代，无序竞争的结果。 -wrongway(歧途); 2013-9-21 (#75136@41)
非常感谢这样的数字资料，因为这些资料打了ca,cma一个嘴巴。36500是cpa人数，包括ca+cma。如果各自一半的话，只有18000人，和cga的22000，如果加上9000学生，ca+cma人数方面完败。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75138@41)

而且cma2010-2011有20000人，如果该数据准确，ca大概只有15000不到。不用跟cga ontario比了吧。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75139@41)

看错了。cma25000，那ca10000都不到。而且，cma student的时候收费非常低，估计对其运营有很大影响。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75140@41)

ca10000,cma15000,cga22000，这样的人数比例和我的感觉差不多。大家在财会作这么多年了，碰到几个ca,cma,cga,总有个印象。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75141@41)

你是不是小学毕业？那个36,500是CPA-CA的人数，CMA还不允许用CPA的title. 去年的CGA ON的Survey你做了吗？？ -wind_morning(风); 2013-9-21 (#75146@41)

cma不是已经合并了？开始叫做cpa-cma了？还没有啊。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75148@41)
别着急了就人身攻击。解释一下，在“About the Profession ”，提到“Becoming a CPA, CA requires:”。注意这里写cpa, ca. -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75150@41)

然后“more than two-thirds of Ontario’s almost 36,500 CPAs now practise outside public accounting ”，为什么不写“cpa,ca”？职业素质如此之高的cpa,ca漏写了“,ca”？你先找你们ca问清楚。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75151@41)

同学呀，你哪看到我说我是CA了？人家要咋写是人家的是，CPA,CA 他们爱用哪个是他们的自由，行不？网友好心给出的具体数字你要瞎捉摸，也不研究一下？ -wind_morning(风); 2013-9-21 (#75152@41)

不就是认真了研究了发现为什么没有consistent。会计政策重大改变都要声明，对吧。自己网站一会说cpa,ca ，一会说 cpa。到底想说自己是什么。ca解释一下就好了。不过不知道该找cpa,ca, or ca, or cpa来问个明白。 -wolaiziguangxi(guangxi); 2013-9-21 (#75153@41)

CMA has 25,000 members -maplefish(鱼之乐); 2013-9-21 {158} (#75131@41)
On CMA annual report:

With 25,000 members, CMA Ontario is an integral part of a profession thatis 50,000 members strong across Canada and around the world.
http://www.cmaontario.org/portals/2/media/aboutcma/PDFs/Informative/CMA_Annual_Report_2011.pdf

昏了，看了半天还是没有明白，Affiliate 和Associate Member 有什么具体的不一样，转来转去没有一个人明白讲清楚。我相信，作为个人，大家主要还是关心合并和不合并对我们个体的影响有多大。 -hong_1(小馋猫); 2013-9-20 (#75076@41)

@San Francisco

Unification: The Right Path for CGAs‏? Email to CGAC from a member

Replies, comments and Discussions:

More Topics