Summary#
Bill 89, the Massage Therapy Tax Act, 2025, would create a new Ontario law; it does not amend an existing Act. Its goal is to have massage therapy services provided by registered massage therapists receive the same tax treatment as those services provided by other practitioners.
- The Minister of Health must take all necessary steps toward equal tax treatment, including introducing legislation if needed.
- The bill does not itself change a tax rate, create an exemption, or say which tax treatment should apply.
- The duty concerns services provided in Ontario by registered massage therapists under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991.
- The Act would start on Royal Assent.
What it means for you#
- Registered massage therapists and their clients: The bill does not directly change what tax is charged or paid. Any change in tax treatment may depend on further steps, including possible later legislation.
- Minister of Health: The Minister would have a legal duty to take all necessary steps toward equal tax treatment.
- Taxpayers: The bill does not set a tax rate or state how much tax revenue might change.
Money#
No cost or tax-revenue estimate is available in the supplied material.
- The bill does not appropriate money or set out funding for the Minister’s work.
- The bill’s preamble says any lost tax revenue would be offset by health-system savings and other benefits. It gives no figures or supporting analysis for that claim.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not name the tax or taxes whose treatment should be made equal.
- It does not define “other practitioners” or identify which practitioners provide the services used for comparison.
- It does not say what equal tax treatment would mean in practice, such as whether massage therapy would receive an exemption or another treatment.
- It does not set a deadline, explain how the Minister’s steps would be assessed, or say what happens if equal treatment is not achieved.
- No publicly available information in the supplied material explains the current tax treatment of the services being compared.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to address different tax treatment for massage therapy provided by registered massage therapists and by other practitioners.
- A possible argument for equal treatment is that it could make care more accessible and support small businesses, as the bill’s preamble says.
- The preamble also argues that any lost tax revenue could be offset by health-system savings. The bill provides no estimate to show whether that would happen.
Case against#
- The bill does not identify the tax treatment it wants, the relevant taxes, or the practitioners it uses for comparison. This makes the intended change difficult to assess.
- The bill does not itself change anyone’s tax bill. Its effect depends on the Minister’s future steps and may require more legislation.
- The bill’s claim that lost revenue would be offset by savings is not backed by cost estimates or other analysis in the supplied material.