Quote:

---

Originally posted by crenshaw


Jake: What are these 'cored glasses' that you have? Part of the perks of the job (as God's sole spokeperson) ?

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com

An old thread was dug up today, to which a contributor called 'regretably canadian' (sic) had a couple of posts. Profile and grouses seem pretty similar to 'Nightmare', apart from sharing some grammatical errors

Probably Nightmare can tell us if he was 'regretably canadian' (sic).

From 'regretably canadian' to Nightmare, and still wants to practise public accounting in Ontario,.........hmm.

Of course, 1 word is easier to spell than 2

Quote:

---

Originally posted by crenshaw

1. You still haven't answered the question as to how all CGA's are being 'disbarred' or being 'wiped out of existence'. I cannot see anything to suggest that your designation is being taken away. Besides, if you are not allowed audits in Ontario (which I doubt), you will still be allowed to practice in other jurisdictions that include the western provinces by transferring your membership there, if you so desire.
=============================================================
For a person having professional designation as CA, you display surprisingly poor knowledge about current CA/CGA parity issue. No wonder, reciprocity was the only way you could have got the designation.

Cga will be barred from carrying out certain type of reviews and assurance assignments because of the new Bill 94. Further CGA were able to do NTR which has been thrown open to everybody i.e. one need not have any accounting designation to carry out NTR.

It is common sense that any profession will survive only if offers economic rewards, challenging work and opportunity for growth. By making CGA subservient to CA, all the aforesaid factors will be lost and hence in due course CGA designation will have no value. Hope your prejudiced mind will be able to comprehend such a simple thing. I again emphasize, making CGA subservient to CA is totally against the recommendations of Dean Daniel Committee and spirit of the bill as enshrined in its pre amble. Such a feat can be accomplished only in banana republic and by morons like Liberals.

=========================================================

2. You have made some statements in your previous post about 'CGA representations to the AG'. This is not information that is publicly available (unless you received it in an internal newsletter). If you look at the public CGA website, there is no mention of this issue, explaining the CGA stand.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HERE is the CGA stand on the issue.

When Bill 94, Public Accounting Act, 2004, passed in the Legislature, it did so unanimously. It was heralded at the time by the Attorney General as “a new structure that favours fairness and competition without compromising Ontario’s public accounting standards. The licensing system is a cornerstone of the reform package that will provide access to licences to a broader range of accounting professionals, consistent with the public interest and maintaining the high standards of which Ontario proudly boasts.”

Prior to the passage of Bill 94, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario (ICAO) had a public accounting monopoly in Ontario. The government recognized that this resulted in a lack of service to the public. It also noted a disparity between a certified general accountant’s access to public accounting licenses in Ontario, and a certified general accountant’s access to public accounting licences in other countries and in most other provinces.

The Act proposed that standards be set by a reconstituted Public Accounting Council. Unlike many boards, however, this council was comprised of competitors in the market, one of whom had a vested interest in maintaining its lucrative, long standing monopoly. Nonetheless, CGA Ontario believed that all parties would act in the public interest, as directed by the Attorney General. To that end, CGA Ontario proposed very high principles-based standards and a competency-based model for licensing as our minimum standards. These suggestions were summarily rejected by the Public Accountants Council (PAC), led by the ICAO members, who understood that this would open licensing to qualified CGAs.

Our proposed licensing standards recognize the rigour of our education and experience programs and the competencies associated with them. The CGA Ontario model reflects the emerging dominant trend in international best practices. Such models are currently in use at the designation and/or licensing levels of several major international accounting bodies in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

Despite our best efforts and vehement objections, the PAC has recommended to the Attorney General the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario’s current standards as the initial standard. These initial standards clearly do not reflect the spirit or intent of Bill 94, or the multi-designation reality of the accounting profession in Ontario. The Attorney General has 60 days or less to object to the proposed initial standards.

If there is no objection by the Attorney General, the proposed initial standards actually place CGAs in a worse position than they were prior to Bill 94. CGAs will, under the current proposals, never be able to obtain licences unless they abandon their practices and conform to the CA certification model. Requiring CGAs to follow the CA model will destroy the integrity of the CGA designation and completely shut out our members from the public accounting market.

The small and medium-sized business market is the backbone of the Ontario economy and the currently proposed PAC Standards continue to block this market from accessing competitive public accounting services. This is also the market most CGA practitioners serve.

Nothing CGA Ontario has proposed will lower standards or endanger the public. In fact, CGA Ontario is a leader in the public accounting field in the areas of insurance, practice inspections and mandatory professional development, to name a few. The spirit and intent of Bill 94 recognized the reality that CGAs had been shut out of the market for 45 years because of a CA monopoly in licensed public accounting.

We are asking that alternatives be explored that will allow CGAs to become licensed as the government contemplated without compromising the integrity of the CGA designation. There are solutions to this issue without taking anything away from the three professional accounting designations.

Attorney General should be requested to explore these solutions fully, recognizing the spirit and intent of Bill 94, before these initial standards become approved by default on June 20, 2006.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3. You call Canada a banana republic. Why do you want to practice public accounting in the banana republic? Do you like the bananas? For the record, we export no bananas, we do seem to 'import' some though

======================================================

You are such a moron that you do not understand meaning of banana republic. Google it.
Banana republic is a pejorative term for a small country, politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture, and ruled by a small, wealthy and corrupt clique.
======================================================

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightmare
Well you better take you cored glasses off

---

Jake: What are these 'cored glasses' that you have? Part of the perks of the job (as God's sole spokeperson) ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightmare
For a person having professional designation as CA, you display surprisingly poor knowledge about current CA/CGA parity issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightmare
It is common sense that any profession will survive only if offers economic rewards, challenging work and opportunity for growth. By making CGA subservient to CA, all the aforesaid factors will be lost and hence in due course CGA designation will have no value.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightmare
Cga will be barred from carrying out certain type of reviews and assurance assignments because of the new Bill 94. Further CGA were able to do NTR which has been thrown open to everybody i.e. one need not have any accounting designation to carry out NTR.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by crenshaw
An old thread was dug up today, to which a contributor called 'regretably canadian' (sic) had a couple of posts. Profile and grouses seem pretty similar to 'Nightmare', apart from sharing some grammatical errors

Probably Nightmare can tell us if he was 'regretably canadian' (sic).

From 'regretably canadian' to Nightmare, and still wants to practise public accounting in Ontario,.........hmm.

Of course, 1 word is easier to spell than 2

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by crenshaw

You still haven't answered another question; were you 'regretably canadian' (sic)?

See below....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by crenshaw
An old thread was dug up today, to which a contributor called 'regretably canadian' (sic) had a couple of posts. Profile and grouses seem pretty similar to 'Nightmare', apart from sharing some grammatical errors

Probably Nightmare can tell us if he was 'regretably canadian' (sic).

From 'regretably canadian' to Nightmare, and still wants to practise public accounting in Ontario,.........hmm.

Of course, 1 word is easier to spell than 2

---

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Are you there?

During 2000 when we applied for immigration the consultant repeatedly spoke of "Canada was selected by the United Nations as the best country to live for the 3rd (or 4th) consecutive year". Can anyone elaborate what were the criteria. I strongly suspect that the entire thing was set up and rigged. Now there seems to be not much talk of "the best country to live" storyline. May be that the Canadian Govt. and consultants have had enough hearty meal of gullible people. But once in a while someone like the PM or Minister for Immigration would come on air and utter things like the above speech. I am sure the consultants would have made big photocopies of the newspaper clippings and pinned it on their office noticeboards.

Incidentally, assuming that India had all the political, social and economic criteria will she get selected as the No.1 country by the same selector if

1. the geographical climate was, what the mountain climbers say they experience atop Mount Everest and other big peaks, for 10 months in an year and
2. 90 % of India's population lived in South India.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ramar2005

During 2000 when we applied for immigration the consultant repeatedly spoke of "Canada was selected by the United Nations as the best country to live for the 3rd (or 4th) consecutive year". Can anyone elaborate what were the criteria.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------
I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible.
But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.