Wab Kinew Owes Nurses an Explanation

Let’s get one thing straight. Emergency rooms don’t run on guesswork or prejudice. They run on triage — a protocol designed to prioritize patients based on how urgently they need medical attention. It’s not perfect. No system is. But it is meant to treat heart attacks before headaches, strokes before sprained ankles. That’s the foundation of emergency care in Canada.

Now we’re being told that Winnipeg’s nurses and frontline healthcare workers may be unfairly assessing patients based on race. That’s the suggestion coming from the Shared Health race-based healthcare data, released this week in partnership with the University of Manitoba. And I want to be careful here — I’m not attacking the data itself. What concerns me is how it’s being interpreted and what this government is doing with it.

The report shows that Black and Indigenous patients are waiting longer in ERs and are more likely to leave without being seen. It claims these patients are being triaged with lower urgency scores and, in many cases, simply give up and walk out. That is deeply troubling. Everyone deserves timely, respectful care, and if there are systemic issues in how we manage emergency departments, we need to confront them.

But the implication now being made — that nurses are assigning lower triage scores based on a patient’s race — is serious. And dangerous. Because what the Premier and his government are doing, intentionally or not, is calling frontline healthcare professionals racist. They’re saying that decisions about who gets seen — and who waits — are influenced not by symptoms, but by skin colour.

Let’s pause there. Are we really saying that nurses are purposefully entering lower triage scores for Black and Indigenous patients? That they’re overriding clinical protocols, ignoring training, and risking lives — all because of bias? That’s a heavy accusation, and I’d like to know what evidence this government has beyond broad statistical conclusions.

Triage in this province uses the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale — CTAS. It’s based on vitals, symptoms, and urgency. It’s not guesswork. I spoke with a frontline healthcare worker about this report. Their reaction was clear: it doesn’t sit well with staff. And I don’t blame them. This kind of message — that racism may be behind triage decisions — cuts deeply into the morale of people who are already overworked, understaffed, and still showing up every day.

If there’s a concern about the CTAS system or how it’s applied under pressure, let’s have that conversation. If we think the protocol fails to capture certain symptoms accurately or doesn’t work well in chaotic ER environments, that’s a valid issue. But throwing nurses under the bus based on aggregated data, without context, isn’t just wrong — it’s irresponsible.

Was the data set reviewed alongside actual medical cases? Did it compare patient symptoms, diagnosis outcomes, arrival times, and ambulance volumes during the same periods? Did it take into account how many paramedics rolled in during those timeframes with trauma victims, heart attacks, overdoses, or stroke patients that needed immediate care?

Or did the researchers just look at race, wait times, and walkouts — and draw their conclusion from there?

That’s not how real-world ERs work. Nurses don’t get to stop time and review race, income, and social history before assigning a score. They’re reacting, under pressure, to critical situations. They’re making life-and-death decisions with the information in front of them. If there’s a pattern of walkouts or delays, maybe we need more triage nurses. Maybe we need a rework of the system. But to float the idea that racial bias is driving outcomes — without proving it case-by-case — is reckless.

The government’s decision to release this information without proper context is what I take issue with. They didn’t stand beside nurses when this story broke. They didn’t explain the triage system or offer any defence of frontline staff. Instead, they stood behind the language of “systemic racism” and let the conclusion hang in the air: that bias is baked into emergency care.

Premier Wab Kinew and Health Minister Uzoma Asagwara owe nurses an apology. If their intent wasn’t to suggest racism, then say that clearly. Correct the record. Because right now, good professionals feel accused of something they didn’t do. And it’s happening at a time when we’re already struggling to attract and retain experienced healthcare workers in Manitoba.

You can’t fix a broken system by attacking the people keeping it running.

We’re all on board with improving health outcomes for every community. We support efforts to close gaps. But solutions must be rooted in facts, not assumptions. And they must respect the people working on the ground.

The truth is, we need more context. What medical conditions were Black and Indigenous patients presenting with when they received low scores? Were the symptoms mild? Were there higher-acuity cases arriving at the same time? Were these patients entering through the front door or brought in by ambulance? What else was happening in the ER during those shifts?

Until those questions are answered, this isn’t a clear picture of racism. It’s a red flag that deserves investigation — not condemnation.

Let’s also not forget that many of our emergency nurses are Indigenous, Metis, or racialized. Are they being accused of the same bias? If not, what are we really saying here? That only some nurses are racially biased? That systemic racism only appears in some decisions but not others?

It’s messy. It’s complicated. And that’s why we need to be cautious before making blanket statements.

If the problem is the triage protocol, then let’s fix that. If the problem is burnout, staffing, or ER volume, then the government needs to address those head-on. But if they’re going to accuse healthcare professionals of racial bias, they’d better have the evidence — and they should be prepared for the consequences of making that claim.

Right now, it looks like the government rushed to make headlines. And in doing so, they’ve done more harm than good.

This isn’t about denying disparities. It’s about how we address them responsibly.

If the government believes the triage system is producing unequal outcomes, then that should be the focus. But suggesting that frontline staff are allowing bias to shape medical decisions — without clear evidence or consultation — risks undermining public trust in the very people we rely on in emergencies.

Publishing this data without sufficient context or explanation does not move us closer to equity — it fuels confusion and division. It discourages healthcare workers, many of whom are already stretched thin, and distracts from meaningful reform.

If we want better results, let’s start with a better process. That means engaging nurses and doctors before drawing conclusions about their conduct. It means understanding how triage works in real-time. And it means focusing on system design, not casting blame.

Public confidence in health care depends on accountability — and so does fairness to the professionals on the frontlines. The government owes them both.