| |
I have been going over the details about the proposed certification process at http://cpacanada.ca/certification-program/details-of-the-canadian-cpa-certification-program, and specifically the practical experience portion at http://cpacanada.ca/certification-program/details-of-the-canadian-cpa-certification-program/practical-experience.
Is it better to have a two-track process for charting practical experience, as proposed? Would a single track be better for providing a proper foundation for new candidates? Would the Approved Path Model disproportionately skew towards larger organizations, or would that be better for creating an “alumni effect” among new candidates that may be useful in their career post qualification? Should there be a mandatory requirement for that model to be employed by such larger organizations? Should there be appropriate controls instituted to ensure that the reporting required under the Experience Verification Model is being done accurately and truthfully by candidates’ employers? What would be the appropriate penalties to ensure compliance?
I realize that much discussion has been undertaken about whether the merger proposal is desirable. However, if members don their thinking caps and consider the various control procedures they have been taught, it would be interesting to see how they view a fundamental area as this.
|
