The topic of discussion this summer has been the announcement that CA and CMA are discussion the possibility of a merger again.  Frankly, we have resisted the temptation to respond before there was more clarity on what was actually happening.  As it is, there has been quite a response within all three accounting communities regarding the proposals put forward and some of the issues, and the elements involved, have become much clearer.

As a response, this is more of a document that asks questions.  Most of the assertions coming from the CA/CMA leadership are unproven bromides that sound good and will get most people agreeing, until harder questions are asked and responses are lacking.  For example:

A more unified profession will best serve the public interest.

Is the public interest the one being served here?  Having consistently kept both the CGAs and CMAs away from standard setting has usually ended up in more complex standards than necessary, which are then challenged by the other organizations.  It is usually CGA that has forced the Institute to reconsider unreasonable rules.  Secondly, what is wrong with competition?  Without a strong opposition we have generally seen governments act more in their own self-interest than the public interest - why would a single accounting profession not act in the same way - what would be the counterweight?  Thirdly, over 60% of student working towards a professional accounting designation are working on a CGA.  While the reasons are many, the key ingredient is that CGA welcomes students, gives them the opportunity to try, and then allows them to progress towards success.

There will only be one designation - CPA.

As George Orwell wrote in "Animal Farm" - while everyone was equal, some were more equal than others.  Why would anyone believe that a 10 year time frame was necessary to bring organizations together?  The more you read of the CA document the more you can see clearly the final result: retention but no expansion of rights; merging operations and governance; creating a new qualification (that must be no less rigorous than what the CAs currently require).  So the CPA-CMA, with 1/4 of the voting power and no organization to speak on their behalf will simply be ignored by the majority until they fade away and become less of an inconvenience.

A further complication is that gaining the use of CPA in Canada is a logistical nightmare that would be opposed both locally and internationally.  If they are blocked from using CPA what happens?  Anyone for CA*?

The resulting qualification requirement will draw upon the strengths of the two existing programs.

How?  The CA program specifically trains auditors, the CMA program management accountants.  CAs have failed in their attempts to train within industry because the model they have used for 130 years does not translate well outside of the accounting firm.  Why did CGA and then CMA come into existence in the first place?  CGA has taken many years to get the training right and there have been many bumps and challenges along the way.  We have always had a commitment to the duality of accounting however, and ensured that neither stream was sacrificed for the other.  How can the Institute assure it's members that the quality and focus of their training will not be changed (watered down) and yet tell the CMAs that their standards will be reflected in the qualification process?  When the going gets tough are they going to stick with it, or go back to what they know?

There are many other statements that can be addressed in this manner.  We urge you to not take such statements at face value and ask, as a professional, do these statements hold up to proper inquiy.