Request for a vote to be held at a General Meeting for the proposed CA/CGA/CMA merger in Ontario

Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/158690004197791/

Update May 15, 2012

Ontario CMAs and Ontario CGAs Withdraw

The following was sent to members today:
Today, the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario and Certified General Accountants of Ontario announced that they will no longer be part of unification discussions in Ontario or nationally. The ICAO will remain part of the national unification process.

We continue to believe that unification would benefit all accountants, protect the public interest and strengthen the future of accounting in Canada. The ICAO is encouraged that across Canada support for unification is strong. Therefore, it is important for us to stay involved with developments across the country and work with those who share our beliefs.

We will continue to keep you informed of any new developments. As always, if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to share them with us by e-mail at: Member_Viewpoint@icao.on.ca.

Sincerely,

Gregory M. Gallant, FCA
Chair


R.N. (Rod) Barr, FCA
President and Chief Executive Officer

Update April 18, 2012

Tagging among contentious issues

We received the letters that were distributed April 13, 2012 to Ontario CGAs and CMAs by their respective associations re. the merger delay. The letters were virtually identically.

The following is an excerpt from the CMA letter:

“While we’ve made some progress in our joint discussions, there are still a number of issues that need to be resolved before a member proposal can be issued. These include:
• A legal structure and a member ratification process that would be acceptable to the Boards of all three parties to effect the unification. To be clear, at this point, the three bodies are not in agreement as to the required legal structure to effect a merger and the appropriate member ratification process to legally effect such a structure;
• Enforceable commitments regarding member protection and minority rights;
• Full access to the global designation. The business case for unification is founded on the premise that CPA will emerge as the global designation. If instead it becomes apparent that the CA will emerge as the global designation, and a decision is made to revert or continue to use the CA designation, legacy CMAs (who would be CPA, CMAs under unification) need to be granted full and equal access to the use of the CA designation;
• Agreement on the information and documentation the members of the three organizations would be given on which to base their vote;
• The transitional governance structure;
• The national governance model, including clearly defined roles and responsibilities; and,
• The inconsistencies across the country with respect to the use of the CPA designation.”

Another issue Ontario CAs have been asking us is whether they should pay their CA dues, which are payable without penalty by June 1, 2012. We don’t have an opinion at this time. We appreciate your frustration. If the dues are paid, the ICAO may see this as support of the merger. If the dues aren’t paid, the ICAO may see this as support for the diminishing value of the CA and a reason to merge. The only advice we can offer is if your dues unpaid, you will not be a member in good standing -- and thus, will not be able to vote.

UPDATE: April 13, 2012

Merger Delay:

ICAO leaders Rod Barr and Gregory Gallant today issued an email to CAs in Ontario that “The CGAO and CMAO have advised that they need some time to think further about, expand and resolve certain issues before moving ahead. While we are disappointed in the delay, we are nonetheless encouraged that they continue to support unification.” The pair did not indicate what the “certain issues” were nor did they offer a timeline. Instead, Barr and Gallant reiterated their pro-merger position and noted that “the vote - planned for June - will be delayed.” There are 35,000 CAs in Ontario.

Council Elections:

The deadline to run for the ICAO Council elections is May 15, 2012, http://www.icao.on.ca/CA/AGM/CouncilNom/1011page14745.aspx. There are eight positions open. Despite the frustration Ontario CAs are sharing with us that the current Council has been unresponsive to Ontario CA concerns and Council members elected last summer did not mention the merger in their election platforms -- we encourage you to run. It is probably the only way to get your voice truly heard.

The founder of this Go Petition, Ricky Tsui, is running.

BC:
In a survey released April 11, 2012, 3,334 of the 11,144 BC CAs invited to participate in a poll did. In response to the question “How likely are you to endorse a recommendation from Council to BC government to proceed with the restructuring if supported by stakeholders?” 30% replied they were strongly likely.

http://cpacanada.ca/blog/2012/04/11/update-on-status-of-bc-member-surveys/


Manitoba:

In a non-binding poll released April 2, 2012, 785 Manitoba CAs indicated that they supported Council’s proposal to merge CAs and CMAs. The total number of Manitoba CAs who participated in the vote was 1,414. The non-binding poll asked whether CGAs should join the merger discussion. Of the 1,357 members who responded to that question, 416 were strongly in favour. The three-way merger is being considered in Ontario.

http://www.icam.mb.ca/updates/update_032312.html


Saskatchewan:
Saskatchewan’s ICAS posted a Merger Update March 30, 2012. Similar to Ontario, Saskatchewan will given its members a non-binding vote. Similar to the ICAO, the ICAS has given itself a few outs with respect to the vote: A) if the voter turnout is less than 25% AND/OR B) if a majority of other provinces are moving forward with the merger.

Hopefully, we will have an update on what issues Ontario CMAs and CGAs are grappling with. No new news on Alberta….


UPDATE: March 12, 2012

A few updates today.

Why Alberta pulled out – Proposal Details Incomplete

First, Alberta has posted the rationale for its decision to pull out of the merger talks. Even if we DO get a binding vote, we SHOULD pay attention as the main argument is there isn’t enough information to make an analytical decision. In a newsletter sent to members March 8 (http://www.albertacas.ca/Resources/UnitingtheCanadianAccountingProfessionProject.aspx), D. Blair Nixon, president ICAA Council, noted the following:

“During the course of those negotiations, it became obvious to ICAA Council that there were pressing issues—predominantly in the areas of “tagging” or naming, as well as the rigour of the proposed education, regulation and professional standards—that were beyond the scope of provincial discussions, and were best resolved nationally. Unfortunately, it was equally clear that these issues were not going to be coordinated and resolved at the national or interprovincial levels within the suggested timeframes of this unification project.

CAs have been trained to be analytical. That being the case, the ICAA Council felt that its members would prefer to vote on a proposal that lays out the full details of a merger, its impacts and the implementation process. We believed that this “detail-based” approach is the appropriate basis upon which we should expect members to vote, especially in circumstances where Alberta CAs would not be in the majority position after a three-way merger was effected. This detail-based approach is not unlike the disclosure requirements that governments impose on other organizations which are proposing a fundamental change in their relationships with their respective members. Furthermore, we believe full details will be required to gain support from the Alberta government for this fundamental change to the accounting profession.”

Council Election:

http://www.icao.on.ca/CA/AGM/CouncilNom/1011page14745.aspx

As the above link shows, the ICAO is holding elections for EIGHT Council positions. The deadline is May 15, 2012, two months later than last year’s deadline. We will not speculate on why the ICAO has delayed elections and the AGM this year.

Despite the frustration members have shared re. Council and ICAO leadership’s unwillingness to listen to members’ request for a binding vote, we still encourage you to run. We encourage you to look beyond Council members elected last summer who uniformly did NOT cite the merger in their election platforms. If you want to change the direction of ICAO leadership, start by setting an example and run with a transparent platform. We have also heard rumblings about whether the election process will be transparent. It is our understanding that there is an independent third-party overseeing the election. However, that needs to be validated.

Pollara:

The ICAO continues to sample the ICAO membership on how they feel about the merger through Pollara. It is not a blanket survey, so do not respond to the survey via someone else’s forwarded email. Wait until you receive your random survey from Pollara. Please, do not give up and think the survey is pointless as ICAO leadership seems to be ignoring you. Respond and continue to share your opinions.

Taking a page from the CGAs:

Yes, we know that in a January 17 email to CGAs, Blake Mercer, Chair CGA of Ontario and Doug Brooks, CEO, CGA of Ontario, advised members: “Ultimately, it is you, the member, who will decide through a vote if CGA Ontario proceeds with a merger.”

We hope Gallant and Barr are listening to what Mercer and Brooks are saying. At the very least, Ontario CAs deserve what Mercer and Brooks are giving Ontario CGAs – a binding vote on this pivotal issue.


UPDATE February 29

We’ve been asked for our feedback regarding the Globe and Mail article. The author didn’t dig enough to understand the difference between the designations. For example, why are the vast majority of the CFOs of the largest companies on the TSX CAs? Why is there only one CMA and no CGAs among that elite group? Clearly, the market recognizes the difference. Second, why are the leadership of various provincial CA institutes against a binding vote? Third, the issue of public interest wasn’t addressed.

We’ve also been asked for feedback with respect to today’s communication from ICAO’s Barr and Gallant, which comes on the heels of the Globe story. The communication is full of rhetoric, it contains flawed logic and it raises many questions. One example, relates to the (non-binding) vote: “Council takes its responsibilities to members very seriously. So, although it is not required by our legislation or bylaws, Council decided in October that all members will have the opportunity to express their views on any proposed merger through a vote…That said, subject to the views of the Attorney General, we will only proceed to ask the government for this new legislation if our members are in favour of the proposal, with two possible exceptions:
• if a majority of the other provinces vote for unification and Ontario doesn't; or
• if ICAO voter turnout is so low that only a small fraction of our membership would be deciding the outcome of this very important issue for all of the others.
In any case, Council has a duty to consider what the public interest and the interests of the profession require.”
So, why does Council – who were elected as recently as last year and who uniformly FAILED to mention the merger in their election platforms – act as if it is doing a favour by giving its membership a non-binding vote (i.e. a poll) in (maybe) June? Moreover, ICAO elections have historically had a low vote turnout. Will Council enact any measures to ensure there is a higher turnout this time around? Also, since ICAO and CICA leadership has shown a clear bias in pushing forward with the merger, what comfort will it offer members that the vote results will be genuine? Will there be a transparent voting process? Also, even if there is a low turnout, what gives the ICAO Council, a very small number of individuals who were elected WITHOUT mentioning the merger in their election platforms, the right to decide the fate of Ontario CAs?

Our key suggestion is to continue to write to the Attorney General, your MP and your MPP….stay tuned.


UPDATE: February 27

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-bean-counters-get-into-a-brouhaha/article2349506/singlepage/#articlecontent

Canada’s bean counters get into a brouhaha

Jeff Gray

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Feb. 24, 2012 6:35PM EST

Allegations of intimidation. An Internet petition with thousands of signatures. Dissidents who insist on anonymity.

It is not exactly the type of intrigue you would expect to surround a merger proposal from the three umbrella bodies that oversee Canada’s accounting profession.

But the passions of some of the country’s 170,000 bean counters have clearly been stirred.

Behind the battle is a new push from the profession’s leaders that would see Canada’s chartered accountants (CAs), certified management accountants (CMAs) and certified general accountants (CGAs) eventually trade in their acronyms for a new one: CPA, or chartered professional accountant.

Those promoting the idea say it is needed to streamline the way the provincially regulated profession is governed. They say it would save the millions of dollars in advertising that the bodies have spent competing with each other. And they point to the need to face competition from foreign accounting bodies such as Britain’s Association of Chartered Certified Accountants.

They also say the profession here must speak with one voice in global debates about the new international accounting standards, which were recently adopted by Canada.

Quebec’s bodies have already decided to merge. But this will still leave 36 separate provincial governing bodies in charge of the splintered profession. Merging those into one body in each province or territory simply makes sense, says Kevin Dancey, head of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

The current system “makes for a pretty inefficient structure, particularly when the world is going global,” he said.

Merging is not a new idea. A previous attempt between CAs and CMAs failed in 2004 after members objected. Many in the profession say there has been a blurring between the three disciplines over the years. For example, CAs used to be the only discipline allowed to perform audits. Now, in most cases, the other designations can as well.

Still, resistance has been fierce. Earlier this month, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta said it was bowing out of the merger talks, citing negative feedback from members. CGAs in Manitoba are also sitting on the sidelines.

Before anything becomes a reality, provincial and territorial legislatures will each have to draft and pass new laws.

In the mean time, an acrimonious debate rages. Much of the opposition appears to come from CAs, some of whom see their designation as superior to the others.

In Ontario, the battle has gotten ugly. Some CAs are upset that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario (ICAO), while holding a vote this June, is not allowing a binding vote. (The question of a member vote varies between designations in each provinces. Other bodies, including all CGAs, are holding what they say are binding votes.)

Prominent Toronto accountant Al Rosen says a dissident group of Ontario CAs, associated with an Internet petition apparently signed by more than 3,600 people, are remaining anonymous out of fear of reprisals.

“I’ve been told that the younger CAs, their jobs are being threatened because they are taking up this cause,” Mr. Rosen said.

Some CAs opposing the merger declined to speak to The Globe and Mail on the record.

Mr. Rosen says he opposes the merger because he says it would create a more powerful lobby group to pressure governments to lower accounting standards. And it would wipe out the differences between the designations, he adds.

“I still have not found an advantage,” Mr. Rosen said. “The disadvantage is going to be that the one-size-fits-all shoe-store mentality will be there.”

In a statement e-mailed to supporters, the opposition group says its members were invited to address the Ontario institute’s council in December, but declined due to scheduling problems and because the ICAO allegedly took “measures to arguably make those invited feel intimidated.”

Rod Barr, president and CEO of the ICAO, declined requests for an interview. But in an e-mailed response from a spokesman to questions submitted by The Globe, Mr. Barr said his organization had not intimidated anyone.

“We have no idea what is being referred to in that quote,” his e-mail reads. “The ICAO has gone out of its way to talk to this group and any other interested members on numerous occasions.”

The e-mail said that if the organization’s vote fails, the institute would still consider going ahead only if a majority of other provinces proceed with the merger, or if turnout was very low.

Anthony Ariganello, president and CEO of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, gives the latest merger plan “better than a 50-per-cent chance” of working out: “We’re hopeful that we can get it over the hurdle this time.”

U.S., U.K. ACCOUNTANTS BACK NEW DESIGNATION

Canada’s accounting profession, wrestling with a plan to merge its three different designations into one, is also looking over its shoulder as foreign competitors come calling.

At the moment, a long-running feud with Britain’s Association of Chartered Certified Accountants is in federal court. The foreign body and Canada’s chartered accounting profession are doing battle over the trademark to the very letters CA. The fight is cited by merger proponents as another reason Canada’s profession needs to unite.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, two of the world’s largest accounting organizations joined forces to launch a new global designation for accounting professionals.

At a recent reception hosted by Britain’s Consul-General in Toronto, representatives of the London-based Chartered Institute of Management Accounts (CIMA) toasted their new joint venture with the massive U.S.-based American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the largest grouping of accountants in the world.

As though there were not enough acronyms involved, the two bodies launched a new designation, the CGMA, or Chartered Global Management Accountant. It’s a credential they hope their management accountant members the world over – and in Canada – will start using.

The question of what letters an accountant can put after their name remains controversial.

By law in Ontario and some other provinces, foreign-accredited accountants are forbidden from using their own acronyms on their business cards. The rule was reconfirmed in revised legislation passed in Ontario in 2010, over cries of protectionism.

Those behind the British-American joint venture say Canada should loosen its rules.

“I think one of the first challenges is to make people understand that healthy competition is a good thing,” said George Glass, the past president of CIMA. “A monopoly is not going to give you the best result, we always know that.”

His American counterpart, Paul Stahlin, who also addressed the Toronto reception, said there was room in the world for all sorts of accountants: “There’s enough room for many accounting associations, as long as they all have got the mission to raise standards … That’s what we’re all about.”

But the leaders of Canada’s accounting professions clearly see foreigners as a problem. They warn that if a foreign-designated accountant does something unethical, he or she is not subject to the profession’s domestic discipline procedures. (CIMA counters that it operates around the world and can easily investigate complaints from its London headquarters.) “If you’re dealing with an accountant from some other non-Canadian body, there’s no real regulatory process in Canada,” said Kevin Dancey, president and CEO of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. “We don’t really think that’s in the public interest.”


UPDATE: February 20

We hope you received our email re. Alberta withdrawing from the merger talks due to feedback from its members.

You asked us two questions:
1) Why is Alberta listening to its members and why does Ontario seem to be ignoring its members?
2) Why did the CICA and ICAO not share this news with members?

We cannot shed light on either.

We received a tip from someone out west that a certain professor in Ontario might have advice on how we could get a binding vote. The response from the Ontario professor illustrates the battle we face in Ontario.

The Ontario professor advised:
“As usual those without grey hair are worried about a merger. Indeed, in my lifetime those without grey hair have derailed every rational attempt to merge the three professional bodies. ..Once you get to be over ten years out, you begin to realize that the large differences that you saw when you were younger gradually disappear over time as experience becomes the key differenator not designation. ..Hopefully, this time, junior CA’s will see that their differentiation is protected for ten years by the CPA, CA designation and that their youth and inexperience, admirable as it is, will not stop a perfectly rational process from occurring.”

Why does this professor expect the merger to happen – even without members having a binding vote, a Council elected without mentioning the merger as an election platform and the withdrawal of Alberta?

A group has been started on GoPetition to eliminate the tagging as: “This only increases the confusion regarding designations in the market.”

The only other news we have at this time is that Council elections are coming up. We only have limited information, so please contact the ICAO if you are interested in running. The deadline, we understand, is March 4.


UPDATE: February 9

Alberta withdraws

http://cpacanada.ca/topic/alberta-pulls-out-of-merger-talks/

If the above link from Blair Nixon, president ICAA, is true, Alberta has decided to listen to its members.

The post notes: "First, Council wishes to respect the will of the Alberta CAs whom it serves. Feedback from Alberta CAs, through both formal polling and informal consultation, shows that there remain too many unresolved questions, and a lack of perceived benefits, for Council to have a mandate from the membership to move forward with the merger concept as described."

We applaud Alberta's Council for listening to its members. We hope the ICAO Council does that, too. We don't know how likely that is.

In response to receiving a copy of the letter we sent to petition signatories, the only Council member who responded to us, wrote: "Please remove me from this spam."

UPDATE: February 6

In the past week you have received an email summarizing where we stand with respect to our call for a binding vote. We also cc’d ICAO Council members.

We respect and appreciate the feedback and support you have offered. Four things stand out from your feedback:

• CA members believe a binding vote is the least our profession deserves for such a pivotal decision and are frustrated it has not occurred;
• CA members ARE willing to financially contribute to force a binding vote – although it is not clear to members why we need to resort to this measure since we pay more than $1,000 every year in dues;
• CA members are willing to run for Council to ensure that the voices of those calling for a binding vote do not continue to be ignored; and
• CA members are disappointed with how the ICAO and CICA have approached the merger.

We are also aware that on February 3, 2012 Deloitte gave a presentation about the merger to its staff. We have reviewed the 16-slide deck and have spoken to staff who attended. The merger was essentially presented as a fait accompli based on the deck and those who attended. Limited time was permitted for questions. When queried about why Ontario will NOT have a binding vote, we are advised that the response was those making the decision -- i.e. ICAO and CICA leadership -- know best. Those presenting included:
• Jane Kinney, Deloitte partner and ICAO council member
• Shelley Brown – Vice-chair CICA
• Richard Olfert – Chair of CA School of Business
• Jacklyn Mercer – member of governing council for Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nova Scotia
• Rod Barr – President and CEO, ICAO

REMEMBER, MEMBERS OF THE ICAO COUNCIL DID NOT MENTION THE MERGER IN THEIR ELECTION PLATFORMS.



UPDATE: January 29, 2012

In case you haven't heard, the ICAO is in the process of conducting another survey to assess member interest in a merger. This survey adds the CGA to the equation to see if they can muster more support. We do not know what the point of another survey is as the CICA still has not released the results of its summer survey.

However, it is crucial that you make your opinion known through this survey. It will remind the ICAO that a substantial number of members do not support the merger.

The Pollara survey was distributed in January by email. We know that many members did NOT receive the survey. We do not know if this was deliberate. All we can suggest is you contact the ICAO directly.

Do not use a forward link from someone else as the links are unique to each member and using someone else's link will void their survey.

We have also heard that DECODE, a consulting group, has been hired by the ICAO to better understand and communicate with its younger members (those who received the designation in the last 10 years). So, they may be in contact.

We also understand that at least one Big Four has told their employees it supports the merger. This isn’t a surprise, but does remind us that the merger is pushing ahead, despite our call for a binding vote.

“Deloitte supports the proposed unification.
Deloitte supports the reasons underlying the proposed unification and believes the suggested CPA certification process is robust and considerate of a wide variety of career paths.
“The unification process was motivated by many changes in the global accounting environment, and the need for Canada to have a unified strong voice globally,” explains Jane Kinney, Managing Partner, Quality and Risk Management – and an Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario council member. Feedback from the marketplace would also indicate support for the merger.”

REMEMBER, MEMBERS OF THE ICAO COUNCIL DID NOT MENTION THE MERGER IN THEIR ELECTION PLATFORMS.


Further, we have come to realize that we need to regroup and restructure to ensure the success of challenging the merger with a binding vote of members. We lack resources to give this issue the leadership it deserves. This is a plea for your support. To that end, if any members are interested in volunteering their time, please contact us.


We want to reiterate that:
• The ICAO leadership has yet to show that its membership supports this merger. The membership is much more than those who are public accountants. The ICAO leadership has instead told its membership that it respectfully disagrees with those who oppose the merger, without adequate rationale for their position. The ICAO has not revealed any data on membership support for a merger.
• The elected board of the ICAO never said that a merger was even a possibility when it was elected. The ICAO Council was elected as recently as the middle of 2011.
• The “Concerned CA” group now consists of more than 10 per cent of Ontario CAs. Yet, the “Concerned CAs” have had our call for a binding vote essentially ignored. We have met a lot of resistance regarding a binding vote. The ICAO leadership has said that a vote will be held, but it will only be one of many factors that the ICAO will use to make a decision about the merger. The only option for those who are leading the “Concerned CAs” petition against the merger is to use their non-work hours and spend an amount estimated to be in excess of $200,000 to force the ICAO to call a binding vote.
• The leadership of the ICAO has argued that the merger is in the public interest. We do not believe it is. The public interest will not be better served by a merger as accounting and auditing standards will remain unaffected.
• The ICAO leadership has said the merger decision lies with the Attorney General. That is false. The Attorney General has said that it is an issue between the ICAO and its members.

Last, if you have time, take a look at the new standards. They mention having mentors sign-off and a group work component. A lot seems borrowed from the CMA/CGA model doesn’t it? Is the rigor and discipline of the CA being sacrificed? If you think so, then we encourage you to keep telling the ICAO, despite how frustrated you are.

And if you are willing to sacrifice your limited free time to continue to help us, we encourage you to get in touch and let us know how you can help.

UPDATE: January 19, 2012
First off, the petition isn't dead. Just in the midst of a change of 'ownership.'

Please continue to encourage other CAs to sign if they believe a binding vote is necessary. We will continue to push for a binding vote.


You'll probably find this article interesting:

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/66602--canadian-accountants-attempt-merger-confusion-ensues

Canadian accountants attempt merger, confusion ensues
By Matthew McClearn | January 19, 2012

Most one-liners about accountants cast them as a dreary lot. One has them as the people you hire to explain why you didn’t make the money you thought you had. Another calls auditors “the people who go in after the war is lost and bayonet the wounded.” Actually, accountants are as susceptible to scurrilous gossip, petty rivalries and political intrigues as any other profession. Some of them are as obsessed by letters—particularly those found in their professional designations—as they are with numbers.

That’s a problem for those who’d have them march under one banner. Last year, Canada’s professional accountancy bodies began tense negotiations aimed at setting aside decades of rivalry. Their plan is to merge and adopt a single super-designation: the Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA). These efforts will reach a fevered pitch in the coming months.

To understand what just might be the most important issue facing Canadian accountants this year, you need to know several things. One is that not all accountants were created equal. To outsiders, they may seem to be simply number-crunchers, but accountants who work in industry often have very different jobs than their counterparts in education and government. And then there’s coveted “public accounting” work—that is, auditing the financial statements of publicly traded companies. This generally pays best. Unsurprisingly, those allowed to do it have tried to block others from obtaining licences.

Largely on the basis of such historical distinctions, over time Canada’s accountants divided themselves into three rival cabals. The largest, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA), is 80,000 strong. Some CAs regard themselves as the profession’s aristocracy—the best trained, the highest paid. The Society of Management Accountants of Canada (CMA Canada) has a membership half that size. Another 75,000 belong to the Certified General Accountants of Canada (CGA-Canada). Because the profession is largely governed by provincial legislation, the provincial chapters of these organizations have a considerable degree of autonomy. All told, that means 39 separate organizations in Canada, each with its own board and executive team.

“In medicine or law or engineering, there’s one society per province,” says Kevin Dancey, CICA’s president and CEO. “Ours is a fragmented profession, which means it’s not that efficient.” For example, each of the three national bodies spends millions of dollars annually promoting its brands. Universities must tailor their programs to one or more of these options. Membership dues are considerable. And every time government considers changing rules that affect the profession, several lobbyists show up.

You should also know these bodies have tried to merge before. While researching for the latest talks, Joy Thomas, president of CMA Canada, discovered her organization had been founded in the 1920s by a group of dissidents who broke from the CAs out of frustration with a perceived indifference to management accounting. There’s been a reunification attempt about every decade since then, Thomas says, either at a provincial or national level. But those efforts invariably fell apart in the discussion stage. The last such initiative, a proposed merger between the CAs and CMAs, failed in 2004. The largest stumbling block: some accountants don’t like being lumped in with others they regard as inferior.

Yet, since 2004 outside pressures to merge have only grown. Despite making strident claims to the contrary in advertisements, all three national bodies now agree that there isn’t much difference anymore between a CA, CGA or CMA. For example, CGA-Canada successfully muscled in on public accounting work in several provinces where its members had been excluded before, and in the 1990s began requiring that applicants have a university degree. All three have increasingly promoted their members as trusted business advisers rather than simply bean-counters. “The differentiation of the three designations has become blurred,” says Thomas. “We’re all doing the same stuff now.” Having three designations today only creates unnecessary confusion among Canadians, the organizations contend.

Moreover, the associations worry their designations will become irrelevant amid global integration. Originally a British organization, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) is attempting to recruit and promote itself abroad, including in Canada. Meanwhile, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and another British organization, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, teamed up to create a global management accounting designation. “There’s a risk to us that the U.S. CPA will become a well accepted designation just on its own in Canada,” adds Dancey. Merging was an idea that refused to die.

This latest attempt has all the complexities of a high-school love triangle. It began in 2010 when CGA-Canada quietly courted CMA Canada. Little progress was made, and no agreements were signed. What happened next depends on whom you believe. “During those talks, [CICA] got wind of it,” says CGA-Canada president and CEO Anthony Ariganello, “and they approached the CMAs.” CICA, though, insists it didn’t know about the tryst. Whatever the case, three-way talks began in February 2011.

Heeding the lessons from previous doomed efforts, the trio created a new designation: the CPA. Members from the legacy bodies would have the option of keeping their previous designation in combination for 10 years. (It’s called “tagging.” For example, a CA would be able to print “CPA, CA” on her business card.) And rather than impose it on members as a done deal, this time there would be a lengthy consultation period.

By last May, the CAs and CMAs were hot and heavy. At which point, CGA-Canada was booted from the talks or walked out in a huff—again, it depends on whom you ask. “It was not clear that our members’ rights would continue to be protected down the road,” says Ariganello. In particular, he says CGA-Canada was asked to abandon its involvement in an ongoing inter-provincial trade dispute. Ontario does not grant licences to public accountants qualified to work in other provinces, a barrier CGA-Canada wants removed. “That’s something we couldn’t do,” he says.

Hell hath no fury like an accountant scorned. Immediately after leaving the talks, CGA-Canada launched a legal challenge. According to related documents, CGA-Canada got wind on April 1, 2011, that Canada’s trademark registry had just granted CICA the right to use CPA as its official mark. Days later, it challenged that trademark in federal court. “The professional designation Certified Public Accountant is used by professional accountants’ associations around the world,” CGA-Canada pointed out. This is true: the same initials are used by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). There are a lot of CPAs: with 377,000 members across 128 countries, AICPA is the world’s largest conglomeration of bean-counters. The two marks were so similar that they were certain to be confused with one another, CGA-Canada protested.

In fact, this confusion is intentional. “There’s probably twice as many CPAs in the world as there are CAs,” explains Dancey, CICA’s CEO. “And CPA is growing quite large in the emerging areas of the world....Representing a national body within Canada, we think it is important in the future that our brand in Canada be aligned with what people would say is the global brand of choice.” But a global brand backs a global product: Coca-Cola tastes the same in Shanghai as it does in Saskatoon. By contrast, a Canadian CPA will have materially different credentials from an American CPA. One could ask whether the merger will really alleviate confusion or produce more of it.

There was one thing CGA-Canada hadn’t foreseen. One of its provincial bodies, in Quebec, broke ranks last June by entering into three-way merger talks in that province. Greased by the full support of the provincial government, those discussions progressed rapidly. Last October, those groups announced that all 34,000 of Quebec’s accountants will become CPAs on April 1, 2012. That tore a hole in the profession’s metaphysical fabric. CGA-Canada promptly returned to the national talks, resuming the ménage a trois. (CGA-Canada continues to press Ontario to recognize auditors from other provinces, but abandoned its trademark challenge.) The three bodies report that they are now in agreement on all important issues. “We are much further along than we ever have been,” says Thomas.

But the Quebec merger also stoked fears. Quebec’s three bodies didn’t consult members but rather handed them the merger as a fait accompli. Ricky Tsui, an Ontario CA, didn’t want that to happen in his province. So he set up an Internet petition seeking enough signatures to compel his provincial body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, to put the merger to a binding vote. Tsui, who declined an interview for this story, also proposed that if ICAO denied that request, members should instead consider voting to replace the council.

CICA and its provincial bodies are keenly aware of the opposition. According to their own surveys, had a binding vote had been held last September, the two-way merger would have been defeated: 50% of respondents indicated they would probably or definitely vote no. But within CICA, the prevailing attitude seems to be that this opposition stems from misinformation. ICAO president Rod Barr notes the survey also found a large number of ICAO members hadn’t read the official literature, and many wanted to know more. “They were just running around talking to one another about what it meant,” he says. “They’re reacting on an emotional level, on a rumour level.” Barr believes that as members better understand the proposal, support is growing.

That’s not assured. CICA’s own communications consultants warned that “the more you communicate, the more frustrated your members are becoming,” according to a communications plan obtained by Canadian Business. The consultant, Hotspex, cautioned against providing information that might “raise unnecessary questions.” It also advised against using “any language that could be misconstrued as patronizing, e.g. suggesting if they only knew more they’d agree.”

Some members are indeed frustrated. According to ICAO’s governing rules, Tsui needed signatures from 10% of members (about 3,500) to compel the organization to hold the meeting. Largely using word-of-mouth, Tsui was able to get slightly more than that. The comments left by one signatory, Thomas Sheehan, highlighted a common sentiment: “You fought so hard for CGAs to not have a public accounting licence in Ontario, now you want to have them join us? REALLY!!!!! How many CGAs could not pass the CA exams but then went down the street and picked up their CGA?”

But ICAO refused to acknowledge the petition, on the grounds it didn’t comply with bylaws. (Some signatories were students, for example, who aren’t eligible to vote.) Thwarted, the dissident group folded its tent in December. Barr stresses ICAO will hold a member vote as part of the ratification process, which will be considered when making the final decision. “Council is certainly not going to ignore a big negative vote,” he says.

Al Rosen, a prominent Toronto forensic accountant who is member of all three professional bodies, says the merger is being forced down members’ throats. “The tactics being used I find seriously objectionable,” he says. “The membership is really being ignored.” He also rejects the suggestions that CAs, CMAs and CGAs do identical work, noting especially a difference between auditing and management accounting. “It’s like you’re having the orderlies merge with the doctors and nurses,” he says. “It’s a bloody stupid idea.”

Momentum is building nonetheless. Early this year, the three national bodies intend to publish a “unification framework,” which will spell out crucial details. (For example, it will explain what hurdles students must clear to become CPAs.) What happens next varies from province to province. For the most part, the decision rests with the organizations’ boards and provincial governments. However, Ontario’s CGAs will get the binding vote so coveted by some of their CA counterparts, because bylaws insist on it. Dancey expects such crucial decisions will be made by June. Things could get messy, though. It’s possible the merger could happen in some provinces but not others. But Ariganello adds: “We believe if we can get the majority of provinces supporting this, the others will probably line up over time.” Whatever happens, this year could make us forget what we used to think about accountants.



UPDATE: December 10, 2011

Hi everyone,

We would just like to provide an update in that we did not meet with the ICAO Council on December 1, 2011. We had responded to the ICAO with a letter stating that we will not be able to attend given that the creator of the petition/requisition could not be present due to work commitments; and accommodation for alternative means of communication could not be given to key invitees. We had requested that Council provide us with a list of questions and discussions related to the matter at the board meeting, to which we have not heard from them since.

It appears that the ICAO has now taken the approach of making the rounds in industry, and going to individual companies. It is our opinion that they are doing this in the name of an "open forum for discussion and questions" when they are simply trying to convince as many people as they can so that they can have a vote that is somewhat in their favour (ie. 40-50% in favour) and therefore be able to push it through without too much backlash. Many who have been at these "mini townhalls" would be able to attest to this. Our advice is for everyone to retain a level of professional skepticism, and ask them tough questions when they come to your company for a presentation. However, with that said, our experiences have indicated that they are simply not interested in your feedback, and will move onto the next individual if they feel that you cannot be convinced at the session.

With all of that said, we would like to thank everyone for all the support that we have received. Throughout this short period, we have received a lot of encouragement and support via email and telephone. Unfortunately, we have come to the realization that with our small group, we lack the human and financial resources necessary to form a united voice. It is very difficult given our circumstances to present an alternative viewpoint against an Institution that is well equipped with the human and financial resources to present an agenda and viewpoint that they feel is for the best of the profession, the public, and our members, even though we respectfully disagree. In addition, we have met many challenges along the way that we cannot disclose, which also factors into our decision to discontinue our cause.

It was a very difficult decision for us to leave this unfinished, and it pains us to no end. We started this cause because of our passion for the profession and our pride as Chartered Accountants. If we felt that we would be able to continue and achieve tangible results, we would not hesitate to do so. Unfortunately, based on the factors that we had discussed above, other challenges and issues that we had encountered, as well as other disappointing findings that we had uncovered along the way that is quite shocking, it makes it impossible for us to continue.

We thank you for the support, and we hope that you will understand why and how we have reached this difficult decision.

UPDATE: November 29, 2011

We have received a response back from Rod Barr relating to my request to have a conference call on December 1 since I will not be able to make it due to work constraints. His response was:

"We have no capability for incoming calls to the Council chamber…I would hope that, with 3500 plus people on the petition, you could find three people to carry your message."

I have reiterated the fact that I am not able to make it due to work constraints, and I believe that it is important for me to be there since I have been the main point of contact throughout this entire process. I again asked him if there are any other alternatives since I believe that it is possible for them to accommodate a simple request such as a conference call.

Furthermore, I am having dialogue with legal counsel in order to obtain a distribution list as well as details surrounding the requisition for a general meeting.



UPDATE: November 28, 2011

I have just spoken with Rod Barr and he has asked us to contact ICAO's legal counsel to obtain the following:

- what is needed in order to "legitimize" the petition/requisition
- what we privacy requirements we need to satisfy in order to obtain an official distribution list

In addition, he has asked us to attend the Council meeting such that we can exchange our views with Council, and provide an opportunity for Council to explain to us their viewpoints, and why a binding vote is misleading/not possible/doesn't make sense. He acknowledged that it is possible that nothing will come out of it and we may very likely still disagree after the meeting. However, we both agreed that it is worth speaking in person since it is the most effective and direct way to express our opinions and viewpoints.


UPDATE: November 25, 2011

Rod has offered to speak to us today or on the weekend concerning the details that need to be addressed for our requisition, and also what conditions need to be satisfied in order for them to provide us with a distribution list.

We have asked him to provide the details of both in writing as stated below:

1) What is legally required from us or what the petition needs in order for it to be legitimate

2) What is legally required for you to provide us with an official distribution list of member contacts

We believe that this ensures that we understand what is needed from us such that there is no confusion or misunderstanding. We told him that it will also serve as an agenda for the meeting once we have time to review it.

In addition, we will be calling in on December 1 to the council meeting, and I have asked for him to provide us with a dial in number.

We should be hearing back soon on both issues.



UPDATE: November 24, 2011

Just spoke to Rod Barr and he clarified that he is willing to let us meet with council to discuss the logistics of a meeting, including obtaining an official distribution list if we are able to meet certain privacy requirements. He says that the 10% needs to be respected as well as other privacy rules in order to be fair and satisfy all members. I think this is fair and I understand where he is coming from. This means that we will probably need more than 3,500 signatures since students and members not in good standing will need to be backed out.

He has also asked us to speak to council to make our thoughts known in their upcoming meeting on Dec 1.

I have told him that we will call back to confirm availability.





To all Ontario CAs:

In light of the recent development in Quebec, where a merger has been recommended by the Ordre des comptables agréés du Québec (the Quebec equivalent of the ICAO) to the Office des professions du Québec (the provincial government body regulating the profession) on behalf of its members without a member vote, it has become increasingly likely that the same will occur in Ontario.

We are running out of time and options to make ourselves heard. Once the ICAO does the same here in Ontario and a bill is tabled in the legislature, it will be too late for changes to be made.

However, there is something that can be done. According to Section 5.2 of the ICAO Member’s Handbook, members can call a general meeting to transact any business as long as we obtain support from no less than one tenth of the Members entitled to vote at the meeting proposed. This would translate to approximately 3,500 members who we need support from in order to call this meeting. It would be in our best interests in this meeting to request for a vote on this issue. If Council disagrees, our last option may be to have them replaced at this same meeting, in accordance with Section 3.12, Removal of Council Members, which requires a 2/3 of votes cast at the same meeting. I do not believe that we necessarily need or should take this last resort, but raising this possibility to Council may be the only way that we are taken seriously.

This is a historical moment for the future of our profession. Whether our members are in favour or not, it is only fair to present all members with an equal opportunity to have their say through a vote in such a pivotal moment in our organization’s history.

Attached is a draft letter to be sent to the ICAO once we collect enough signatures to request for a general meeting. Please leave your full name, ICAO number, and email contact. Your privacy will be protected, and only the administrator of this petition will be able to view your email contact and ICAO number. Only your name and comment will be viewable if you so desire.

PLEASE BE SURE TO LEAVE YOUR ICAO NUMBER. THIS IS CRITICAL.

I am aware of the other petition that has over 1,300 signatures, but without a formal defined purpose in the petition coupled with ICAO numbers, it will be easy for the ICAO to dismiss its legitimacy. Therefore, please make sure you and any of your friends who have signed the previous one sign this one!

Attached:

Quebec Announcement for a merger:
http://ocaq.qc.ca/documents/pdf/ANG/Membre/ActualitesEtEvenements/Communiques/20111004CommuniqueConjointFavorableDesConseilsFINALEN.pdf

Quebec FAQs on merger:
https://ocaq.qc.ca/Documents/pdf/ANG/Membre/ActualitesEtEvenements/AvenirProfession/FAQAvenirEN.pdf

ICAO Member’s Handbook:
http://www.icao.on.ca/Resources/Membershandbook/1011page2629.pdf