Saskatchewan Party candidate David Buckingham apologized during the 2024 provincial election campaign after former legislative speaker Randy Weekes disclosed that Buckingham had repeated a racial slur in the government caucus office in 2023. Party leader Scott Moe said the matter had been addressed internally and kept Buckingham as a candidate.
What Buckingham acknowledged
Buckingham said he had been recounting another person’s words when he repeated the slur. He called it a serious mistake, apologized to people who heard it and said the language was inconsistent with an inclusive country.
The Saskatchewan Party said Buckingham had previously apologized to caucus staff and caucus and completed sensitivity training. His public statement during the campaign repeated that apology after the incident became widely known.
How the allegation became public
Weekes, an outgoing speaker and former Saskatchewan Party member, described an April 2023 event in which a Black employee overheard Buckingham and a former MLA using racially offensive language. The employee’s experience made the impact more than an abstract debate about quotation.
Buckingham admitted saying the word while providing context about why he used it. Context can help establish intent, but repeating a slur in a workplace can still harm colleagues and normalize language with a history of dehumanization.
The party’s response
Moe said the initial incident was “terrible,” that the party had procedures for such conduct and that those procedures were followed. He declined to remove Buckingham, arguing that the caucus process had dealt with the matter more than a year earlier.
An internal response can include apology and education while still leaving legitimate questions: who documented the complaint, whether the affected employee felt protected, what standard applies to repeat conduct and whether senior officials are held to the same rule.
Apology and accountability are different measures
A useful apology identifies the conduct without euphemism, recognizes its impact, avoids shifting responsibility and explains what will change. The public can then assess behaviour over time rather than being asked to infer sincerity from one news conference.
Sensitivity training may improve understanding, but attendance alone is not proof of learning. A political organization should evaluate workplace culture, reporting channels and retaliation protections alongside the conduct of one candidate.
Election reporting needs proportionality
The incident was relevant because Buckingham sought public office and had served inside the governing caucus. Voters were entitled to examine his judgment and the leader’s response.
Coverage also had to state what was known. Buckingham was not accused of a criminal offence, and the dispute did not establish that every party member shared his conduct. Conversely, describing the word only as “inappropriate” could obscure the racial nature of the harm.
The affected person should not disappear
Political controversies often centre the official who apologizes—whether the statement was sufficient, whether a candidacy survives and what it means for polling. That frame can sideline the employee who had to hear the language at work.
Strong workplace policy offers a confidential reporting route, independent review where leadership is implicated, support for employees and clear consequences. It should not require the person affected to become a public spokesperson.
A standard beyond one campaign
Buckingham’s explanation and apology formed part of the record, as did Moe’s decision to retain him. Voters could weigh those facts against the party’s stated zero-tolerance position.
The broader test is consistency. Political parties ask to govern public institutions and must demonstrate that their own workplaces respond fairly to racism. An apology can begin repair, but credible accountability depends on transparent standards, protection for those who report misconduct and evidence that the behaviour does not recur.
