Who Is Shaping RMT Education in Canada - And Is The Process Fit For Purpose?

Written By Jennifer Slauenwhite

Who Is Shaping RMT Education in Canada—and Is the Process Fit for Purpose?

Efforts to modernize massage therapy education in Canada are currently underway through FOMTRAC. The stated goal is to update the national competency profile to better reflect contemporary practice and support public protection.

This is necessary work.

But the structure and transparency of the process raise important questions about whether the modernization effort is equipped to deliver on that goal.

A Regulator-Led Process

FOMTRAC is composed of Canada’s massage therapy regulatory bodies. Its board is made up of registrars from regulated provinces, and its mandate includes harmonizing regulatory approaches across jurisdictions.

This matters because regulators are responsible for:

  • defining entry-to-practice competencies

  • ensuring public safety

They are not typically responsible for curriculum design, nor are they inherently experts in educational methodology.

That distinction is critical.

A More Structured Approach—With Real Improvements

There are clear strengths in the current modernization project:

  • Use of a recognized competency framework methodology (adapted from Batt et al., 2021)

  • A formal Request for Proposals process

  • Recruitment of a national development committee with over 300 applicants

  • Planned consultation with the broader profession

These steps represent a more rigorous and coordinated approach than previous iterations.

That should be acknowledged.

Where the Process Falls Short

Despite these improvements, key elements required for confidence in the outcome are still missing from public view.

1. Limited Transparency

The project describes itself as transparent, but critical details are not publicly available:

  • Who is on the development and steering committees

  • What expertise they bring (clinical, educational, research, regulatory)

  • How conflicts of interest are identified and managed

  • What role external consultants and reviewers play

Without this information, it is not possible to independently assess the integrity of the process.

2. Blurred Governance Boundaries

The modernization effort is regulator-led, but also supported and informed by external stakeholders, including professional associations and accreditation bodies.

This creates a structural vulnerability:

  • Stakeholders with interests in workforce supply, education, and professional positioning

  • Participating—formally or informally—in shaping entry-to-practice expectations

This does not imply wrongdoing.
But it does require clear safeguards and transparency, which have not yet been demonstrated.

3. Missing Educational Expertise (At Least Publicly)

Competency frameworks underpin curriculum, assessment, and ultimately clinical practice.

Their development requires expertise in:

  • educational design and pedagogy

  • competency-based assessment

  • clinical reasoning development

  • evidence-informed healthcare

While regulatory and governance experience is valuable, it is not interchangeable with educational expertise.

At present, it is unclear:
To what extent independent curriculum and education specialists are involved in this process

4. An Unresolved Content Gap

The existing 2016 competency profile includes:

  • expectations around evidence use

  • knowledge of pathophysiology

  • a wide range of named manual techniques

 

However, it also reflects a technique-forward structure that does not clearly foreground:

  • contemporary pain science

  • biopsychosocial models of care

  • modern clinical reasoning frameworks

 

The current modernization project claims to be evidence-informed and reflective of contemporary practice.

But as of now:
No draft competency profile has been publicly released

So it remains unclear whether these longstanding gaps are being meaningfully addressed.

5. Consultation Without Clear Mechanisms

While broader consultation is planned, the existing governance documents provide limited detail on:

  • how feedback will be incorporated

  • who has influence over final decisions

  • what recourse exists if concerns are raised

Without defined mechanisms, consultation risks becoming:
 Informational rather than influential

Why This Matters

Entry-to-practice competencies are not an internal professional matter.

They determine:

  • what new practitioners know

  • how they reason clinically

  • how they interact with patients and the broader healthcare system

 

This is fundamentally a public protection issue.

If the framework is:

  • outdated

  • overly technique-driven

  • or insufficiently grounded in modern evidence

Then the consequences extend far beyond the profession itself.

A Constructive Path Forward

This is not a call to halt the project.

It is a call to strengthen it.

Specifically:

  • Publish committee membership and expertise profiles

  • Disclose conflict of interest policies and processes

  • Identify independent educational and clinical experts involved

  • Release a draft competency profile for public review

  • Demonstrate how contemporary evidence (including pain science and clinical reasoning) is integrated

These are standard expectations in modern healthcare education development.

Bottom Line

Modernizing massage therapy education in Canada is necessary and overdue.

The current process shows signs of progress.

But without greater transparency, clearer governance boundaries, and visible integration of appropriate expertise, it is not yet possible to determine whether the outcome will meet the standard it aims to achieve.

That is not a criticism of intent.

It is a call for accountability in execution.

 

Jennifer Slauenwhite
Next

Musculoskeletal Syndrome of Menopause.