Pragmatic — not political — Dynacare decision benefits Manitobans

Opinion

The Manitoba NDP government did something this week that will surprise a few people — and probably frustrate some of its more ideological supporters.

It renewed a contract with Dynacare — a private, for-profit company — to provide lab services in the province.

This is the same Dynacare the NDP vocally criticized when it was in opposition. The same private provider it said would erode public health care when the former Progressive Conservative government outsourced community lab services.

But here we are in 2025, with the NDP now in charge, and instead of ripping up the contract or scrambling to repatriate services into the public system, the government has chosen to renew the deal.

And it’s absolutely right to do it.

Political parties say a lot of things in opposition. They posture. They promise. And they condemn decisions that, in government, they often end up maintaining. Why? Because governing is harder than campaigning.

What Premier Wab Kinew and Health Minister Uzoma Asagwara have done is what any responsible government should do: they looked at the data, assessed the quality of service, examined the cost and made a decision based on results — not on a rigid public-versus-private philosophy.

They also added much-needed performance indicators and quality-control measures to the contract.

Health-care delivery is complex. And while the idea of a purely public system may have emotional appeal — especially for NDP partisans — the reality is that modern health systems across Canada (and the world) rely on a mix of public and private partners. The question is not who delivers the service, but how well it’s delivered, how much it costs and whether the public has free and timely access to it.

Dynacare scores well on all of the above. Which is why the company was able to ink another five-year contract with government.

Could community lab services be done through the public system, where government runs it directly? Of course. But government’s analysis shows Dynacare can do it more effectively and at a lower cost.

Is it perfect? Of course not. No provider is. But it has proven to be capable of providing a reliable, cost-effective service that Manitobans depend on every day.

Reintegrating these services into the public system would be expensive, disruptive and could take years. It would involve new infrastructure, new hires and retraining.

Meanwhile, lab services aren’t something we can just hit pause on. People need blood tests, diagnostics and lab analysis every single day. The system can’t afford that kind of interruption.

So the NDP government had a choice: pursue a symbolic, ideologically satisfying course of action that would please the party base but risk service disruption — or stick with a provider that’s already up and running, meeting benchmarks and providing good value.

It chose the latter. And deserves credit for it.

This is what good governance looks like. It’s not always flashy. It doesn’t always make for great political sound bites. But it reflects a sober, grown-up approach to managing public services.

And let’s be clear: this doesn’t mean the NDP is abandoning its commitment to public health care. Far from it.

The core of our health system — doctors, nurses, hospitals, emergency services — remains publicly funded and publicly delivered. What this decision reflects is an understanding that targeted partnerships with the private sector can, in some cases, enhance delivery, especially when public resources are stretched thin.

That doesn’t make the NDP any less committed to fairness, accessibility or universality in health care; it’s not letting dogma get in the way of delivering results.

Some will argue this is a slippery slope — that once you open the door to private involvement, it’s hard to close it. But that door has been open for decades. Private labs, clinics and diagnostic services have long been part of the Canadian health-care ecosystem. The important thing is regulation, oversight and accountability.

If a private provider fails to meet standards, they should be replaced, just as a public provider would be. If they hit their benchmarks and provide value for taxpayer dollars, they should be allowed to continue.

That’s what Manitobans expect. They want pragmatic decision-making that puts patients first, not blind loyalty to ideology.

There’s still a long way to go to fix Manitoba’s health-care system, especially after years of cuts, consolidation and administrative upheaval. But decisions such as this — where ideology takes a back seat to evidence-based decision-making — are a sign the province is on the right path.

You don’t need to wear orange or blue to appreciate that.

You just want the system to work.

tom.brodbeck@freepress.mb.ca