5. Proficiency expected of CA Students

CA competencies are set out in Appendix 1 of the CA Practical Experience Requirements (PER).

Depth and Breadth requirements are set out in Section 3.3.

Purpose

The purpose of proficiency expectations is to ensure that CA Training Offices understand the profession’s expectations of an entry-level CA related to the development and demonstration of CA Competencies and that all CA Students use the same levels of proficiency in their self-assessment for admission to the profession. The proficiency expectations define the level of competency expected of the newly qualified CA in his or her chosen areas of depth and breadth on admission to membership in a Provincial Institute/Ordre.

Requirements

CA Students are expected to develop two kinds of competencies during their period of practical experience: Pervasive Qualities and Skills and Specific (or Technical) competencies (See Section 4: Ensuring sufficient quality and quantity of practical experience opportunities to develop the competencies expected of a newly qualified CA).

To qualify as a CA, the CA Student must demonstrate the proficiency expectations of the entry level CA in all the Pervasive Qualities. CA Students are also exposed to technical competencies through their professional education programs. As noted in Section 4 above, they are expected to acquire direct experience in ALL the Specific Competencies in their area of depth and at least half of the competencies in two other Specific Competency areas. For positions offering depth in Taxation, Governance, Strategy and Risk Management, Management Decision-Making or Finance, one of the breadth requirements must be provided in Performance Measurement and Reporting, with breadth defined as a Level 2 proficiency in three specific competencies (see the PER or the RQE for details on these three specific competencies). Achieving these three competencies at Level 2 proficiency satisfies the requirement for one breadth area.

For the level of proficiency they are expected to demonstrate in these areas of depth and breadth during their period of practical experience, the profession defines two levels of proficiency:

New  Q. The wording of some specific competencies appear to be beyond what would reasonably be expected of an entry-level CA, especially if working for or with a larger and/or more complex organization.  Can you provide clarity on what’s reasonably expected to demonstrate a Level 2 proficiency?

A. There are a wide variety of training environments available to CA students, with the number of options likely to increase over time.  As a result, the competency statements are developed to ensure all CA students are developing the experience required of an entry-level CA.   The key barometer for competence is in assessing where an entry-level CA would reasonably be expected to perform within a particular CA Training Office (organization or CA firm).  In doing so, one must consider the level of complexity of the underlying task.  Counselling Members, who are CAs within the CA Training Office, should be able to assist with this assessment.  All CA Training Programs offering expanded experience opportunities have a customized competency map, which correlates tasks to competencies, and a sample template for CA firms training in the traditional audit-based career path is provided in the Resources section (Sample Audit Competency Mapping Tool).

To provide some clarity on proficiency levels, consider these three illustrative examples:

1.  The traditional audit-based career path of a national CA firm vs. a small local CA firm.    The last competency in Assurance includes participates in a presentation to stakeholders.  An entry-level CA working at a national CA firm may be exposed to auditing multinational organizations.  Presentation to stakeholders is likely limited to meetings with the client to discuss the audit and related findings (likely complex with material impacts).  The audit engagements of an entry-level CA working for a small local CA firm may include privately held organizations, where the audit findings may be less complex, but presentations by entry-level CAs would include participation with the audit committee and/or Board of Directors.  For CA students, both of these situations could theoretically contribute to developing the last competency in Assurance at a Level 2 proficiency. 

2. External Financial Reporting for a large publicly-traded national corporation vs. a privately-controlled regional organization.  Working in a corporate CA Training Office often includes practical experience with financial reporting.  However, the specific tasks relating to the sixth competency in Performance Measurement and Reporting (prepares and/or reviews financial statements and accompanying notes) could be quite different, pending the level of complexity of the organization and related financial statements.  For example, an entry-level CA working on the financial statements for a large publicly-traded national corporation may be assigned specific accountabilities for the overall financial statements (i.e., liabilities and related note disclosures).  The level of complexity may substantiate a CA student developing a Level 2 proficiency, since an entry-level CA would not reasonably be expected to have overall accountability for the entity’s financial statements and a CA student could apply the competencies they developed to other areas of the financial statements.  Meanwhile, an entry-level CA working for a privately-controlled regional organization may be expected to draft the complete set of financial statements, which would also support a Level 2 proficiency for a CA student. 

3. Spending one year of practical experience in the external audit practice of a CA firm that is approved to train CA students vs. the internal audit department of a corporate CA Training Office.  The internal audit department of a corporate CA Training Office may be limited to one industry, depending on the structure of the organization, and possibly with a small number of employees.  The resulting industry specialization and exposure may provide CA students with an active involvement to most aspects of a large number of financial and operational audits within one year.  This could substantiate CA students developing the required number of competencies at a Level 2 proficiency for Assurance to be considered an area of depth.  However, within the first year of experience in the external audit practice of a CA firm, CA students may not get sufficient exposure to the risk assessment and planning stages in order for Assurance to be considered depth.  In these latter cases, sufficient exposure to the competence expected of an entry-level CA, for the purposes of Assurance being an area of depth, may not happen until years 2 or 3.

Q. Who is responsible for assessing student’s proficiency levels?

A. CA Students are expected to self-evaluate their proficiency using the profession supplied Record of CA Qualifying Experience (see Section 11: The Record of CA Qualifying Experience), and to discuss this assessment with their Counselling Members at least semi-annually (See Section 9: Semi-annual meetings between Counselling Members and CA Students). The Counselling Member (who is not expected to become a competency map expert) will review this self-evaluation with the student at semi-annual meetings held throughout the period of practical experience, and will record that the review has taken place, for example, by signing the Record of CA Qualifying Experience, or by making a notation in the CA Student’s personnel files. Should there be a significant difference of opinion in respect of the self assessment, it should also be sufficiently documented by the Counselling Member. At the end of the practical experience term, the Training Principal will sign-off the Certification Sign-off indicating that the CA Student has met all the requirements of the CA Training Program which has been approved by the applicable Provincial Institute/Ordre. A Sample Certification Signoff is available in the PER.

Q. What happens if the CA Student’s assessment of his/her proficiency level is not consistent with the CA Training Offices assessment?

A. While the profession expects the Counselling Member to guide and mentor the CA Student in the self assessment documented in his/her RQE, the RQE and the related signoff are the responsibility of the CA Student. The Counselling Member is expected to document any differences of opinion in respect of the CA Student’s self assessment and to inform the Training Principal if the CA Student has not met the minimum expected level of progression in the CA Training Office. The Training Principal should sign the CA Training Office Certification Signoff only if he/she is confident that all aspects of the CA Training Program have been met.

Q. If A CA Training Office has a performance measurement tool, such as an internal rating scale, to measure the performance of all staff, does the profession expect that tool to be used to measure “the progression expectations” per the certification sign-off?

A. Yes. It is the responsibility of the CA Training Office to assess the CA Student’s completion of its approved CA Training Program, including the CA Student’s progression relative to expectations, using the tools it would normally use for all employees. Every CA Student is, however, still required to maintain the Record of CA Qualifying Experience.