×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。
Ad by
  • 最优利率和cashback可以申请特批,好信用好收入offer更好。请点链接扫码加微信咨询,Scotiabank -- Nick Zhang 6478812600。

A Student's Perspective

本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛A Student's Perspective
janeyeee (jane)
<本文发表于: 相约加拿大:枫下论坛 www.rolia.net/f >
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
Sign in and Reply Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • CPA新PROGRAM信息交流
    本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛应班主要求,我起个头。
    首先,有两个重要的网站。
    (1)CPA CANADA的官方网站,http://cpacanada.ca/
    上面有新PROGRAM的介绍和各省合并的进展。进去以后,点最右边那个图标,ENTER UNIFICATION SITE。
    (2)http://www.cga-bc.org/students.aspx?id=27257
    这是CGA BC网站上的一个链接。BC三大组织原则上已经同意合并。这个链接上面有一个主题How the Accounting Merger Will Affect Current CGA-BC Students ,详细说明了对现有学生会员的影响,这些可能也适用其它省的学生会员。

    比如下面这一段:

    The last exam session under the CGA program is expected to occur in September 2015 (Session 4, 2014-2015 academic year). Students who pass their final examination(s) in this exam period and who have completed all other CGA academic requirements (including an undergraduate degree) and who have received sign-off on their practical experience requirements will not be required to bridge over to the CPA program. Students in this situation will be granted both the CGA legacy designation and the new CPA designation.

    2015年9月前如果完成学位、课程和经验要求,直接就变成CPA。如果没有读完所有课程,就要转到CPA去。

    Considerations for Additional Time
    In addition, CGA-BC students who are able to complete all of Levels 1-4 and all PACE level courses, by September 2015, but who have not completed the degree and/or practical experience requirements, will not be required to bridge over to the CPA program. Rather, students in this situation will be granted 3 additional years (until September 1, 2018) to complete these specific requirements. Upon completion of the degree and/or practical experience (within the 2 year period), students will be granted both the CGA legacy designation and the new CPA designation. (**Updated as of September 12, 2013**).
    如果2015年前读完了所有课程,但没有通过工作经验或学位要求,不用转到CPA去,多给三年时间满足工作经验和学位要求。


    Note: It is strongly recommended that students who will likely transition to the CPA program with partial completion of the PACE level of the CGA program, take 2 of the following CGA-BC PACE Electives: AU2, FN2 and/or TX2 since these courses may be transferable into the CPA PEP program (all remaining CGA PACE electives are not transferable), as we understand at this time. We hope to be able to provide confirmation as of September 2013. Please refer to this Merger updates page frequently.
    如果在2015年9月之前完不成,选什么课就很重要了。

    新PROGRAM跟CGA现在的PROGRAM很类似,到了最后一个阶段可以选不同的方向,如PUBLIC ACCOUNTING或CORPORATE FINANCE,相应选修的课程不一样。但最后都要参加一个MULTI-DAY CASE-BASED EXAM,类似现在的UFE。这可能是一个挑战,技术方面应该不会太难,主要是语言方面,主要是写作,所以得苦学英语。所有组织的学生一起考,学生的平均英语水平会较高,因为大量的学生都是本地学生,考试会卡通过率,而且只给几次机会,这最后一关不好过。
    能在2015年前学完所有课程的,一定要努力学完!!!更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
    • 这个还是要有个英文的比较好. BC的CGA和安省的不同,BC的CGA firms早就可以提供auditing services. BC CGA已经为它本省的成员争取到了最大利益。安省的CGA要重视合并的话题,尽力为所有的成员在合并中争取最大利益
    • 正象网友们提出的,CGA是各省不同,而Saskatchewan 就争取到了Joint Venture的成绩。 安省CGA应该努力,最大限度地争取自己的权利。而在先阶段,权利不平等的情况,要大声对合并说"NO"
      • 对,各省情况不同,认识到这一点很重要。有的省已经谈妥的问题,在安省还很艰难。还有的同学拿quebec来举例,这就完全没有可比性
    • A Student's Perspective
      本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛A Student's Perspective
      janeyeee (jane)
      <本文发表于: 相约加拿大:枫下论坛 www.rolia.net/f >
      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
      • 我们只有现在争取平等的权利,更多的board seats,才可以在将来制定新的Ontario CPA Program的时候争取对CGA学生更有利的条件,保护所有CGA 会员的利益。这才是对CGA学生和会员负责的态度。什么都不讲清楚,就催着CGA放弃自己的权利是不明智的。
        • 这个board,合并以后是自己选自己的吗,比如说CA, CMA,CGA各有3个seats,CGA们只能在参选的CGA里面选,然后挑出3个?那合并以后的进入program的CPA们,他们怎么选,他们可以从所有的参选的CA,CGA,CMA,CPA里面选?
          • 同学,麻烦你再看清楚,要是"CA’s are, by bylaw, required to have no LESS than 50% of the Board seats"你就是选出花来,CA还是绝对多数,CA对自己的progrom最熟悉也会对自己的会员利益保护更好,就会制定有利于CA的Program而不是关照其他会员,不管是有意还是无意的。
            你把自己能拥有的权利拱手给别人,再要求别人重视你的利益,可能吗?
            • 因为我没看清楚,我才请教你。
              • 首先你作为CGA应该搞清楚自己的权利,其次你搞不清楚也不用这么理直气壮的。Jane 是做了整个一个星期研究才贴她的观点的,我希望你在反驳的时候,也应该有同样严谨的态度,才是对网友的尊重。
                • 我并没有反驳,我不知道,才问的。
                • 我就觉得奇怪了,我不清楚,就问了一下,有什么大不了?你愿意回答回答,不愿意,就不回答。和你观点一致的就是严谨的,观点不一致的就是不严谨了?我早投了against了,算是严谨,算是尊重自己的权利了吧?!
                  Jane做了1个星期得出的结论,那那些投for的同学,就没有花时间?你知道我没有花时间看?退一万步说,花了时间,结论就是正确的了?!那如果我花了更多的时间才问了这个问题的,几个月前,cga什么survey的时候我就email他们问了,email交流也几次,比一个星期长了吧,这个就严谨了?
                  • 你都投AGAINST,还挑战和自己意见一致网友是什么目的啊?你投AGAINST的原因又是什么啊?我们是一群AGAINST在和另一群AGAINST吵了三天! I服U了,亲
                    • 太多了,归根结底,我觉得CA在很多issue上太想占据主导地位,比如name tag的问题,name tag我没意见,但是若干年后,怎么办?既然都是CPA了,应该大家一起决定。不能说有CA决定了。还有就是有些issue,合并以后取消member投票了。
            • 你觉得这个CA, 一点不为CGA考虑,你下次换个CA选就可以了。要说,某个CA的board member可以为了偏袒CA,
              宁愿下次不被选上(CGA会员应该大于50%,否则也不会觉得CA的席位不少于50%不合理)。那某个CGA的board member也可以为了自己被选上,去偏袒CA (前提CA们的选票足够多)。
              • 同学你还是没明白, 这个CA你不选,你还是要选另一个CA,50%board seats都是CA,每一个决定对CGA都没利,即使你不同意,你还是要选CA. 到时候, 你选不选都没意义了.
                就说CPA Ontario Program吧,如果CA和CGA在制定Program时有分歧,CA当然更熟悉自己的会员和program的方法,一定会制定更接近CA的Program,而且不一定会认真听取CGA的意见,到时候,你选谁都改变不了CGA会员利益被忽视的可能。

                我们并不奢望别人照顾我们,CGA也不是依靠别人的施舍存活下来的,我们就要求不要给我们不公平的待遇,很过分吗?