At two o'clock this morning, most of Quebec turned its clocks back one hour. The adjustment is familiar enough: an extra hour in bed, earlier darkness, cats wondering why their owners are starving them, and the usual disruption to routines that comes with changing the time twice a year. This time, however, it may have been one of the last.
On October 28, the Quebec government announced its intention to abolish seasonal time changes, following similar decisions earlier this year in British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba. What remains undecided is which time Quebec should keep: permanent daylight saving time, commonly called summer time, or permanent standard time, the time observed during winter.
The distinction sounds fairly technical. In practice, it presents a familiar problem in democratic governance. Participants in a public consultation preferred one outcome, scientific experts recommend another, and the government must decide how much weight each deserves.
In October 2024, the previous Quebec government launched an online public consultation on the future of seasonal time changes. More than 214,000 responses were recorded. When the results were announced in March 2025, 91 per cent of respondents favoured ending the practice. Among those who wanted the changes abolished, 72 per cent preferred permanent daylight saving time.
These figures require some caution. An open consultation is not a representative opinion poll, and its results cannot establish the preferences of Quebec's entire population. Nevertheless, they reveal a clear preference among participants for preserving brighter evenings.
I will admit that I share that preference. Permanent summer time would preserve an additional hour of evening sunlight during the winter months. For people who spend much of their day indoors, the opportunity to enjoy some daylight after work has an understandable appeal. I would certainly welcome it.
The scientific advice, however, points in another direction.
The Canadian Sleep Society recommends abolishing seasonal time changes but adopting permanent standard time rather than daylight saving time. Morning light helps synchronize our internal biological clocks with the daily cycle of wakefulness and sleep. Permanent daylight saving time would delay winter sunrises by an additional hour, requiring many people, particularly children and early-morning workers, to begin their days in darkness.
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine has reached a similar conclusion, citing evidence that standard time better aligns with human circadian biology and offers benefits for health and safety.
These recommendations deserve serious consideration. Sleep is not merely a matter of personal preference, and the health consequences of misaligned biological rhythms cannot necessarily be overcome by choosing an earlier bedtime. The appeal of brighter evenings may come with less visible costs.
Yet I am not convinced that the existence of a scientific recommendation should, by itself, establish a presumption in favour of the policy it proposes.
There is an important distinction between scientific findings and the policy recommendations drawn from them. Research can establish the likely health consequences of different time arrangements. Whether those consequences should take precedence over other considerations is a different question, and one that cannot be resolved through scientific inquiry alone.
This does not diminish the authority of scientific expertise within its domain. Sleep researchers are better equipped than the general public to assess the effects of morning light on circadian health. But expertise in identifying the consequences of a policy does not necessarily confer authority to determine which social objectives should prevail. People may recognize the health benefits of standard time and nevertheless value the opportunities afforded by brighter evenings. That preference is not inherently a rejection of the evidence.
Of course, this reasoning has limits. There are circumstances in which the evidence of serious harm is sufficiently compelling that governments should give overwhelming weight to expert advice, even against popular preferences. Democratic legitimacy is not a licence to disregard established facts, nor does the popularity of a policy make its consequences acceptable. The seriousness of potential harms, who would bear them, and the availability of alternatives all matter.
I recognize that my own preference for brighter evenings may influence how I approach this question. Perhaps I would feel differently if the scientific recommendation happened to favour the arrangement I already preferred. It is a fair concern. But it reinforces the importance of considering each policy on its merits rather than assuming that either expert recommendations or public preferences should automatically take precedence.
The same principle applies to public participation. Quebec's consultation was no referendum, and its results do not constitute a mandate for permanent daylight saving time. Nor should elected governments govern by opinion poll. But if expert recommendations are presumed to take priority whenever they conflict with public preferences, what purpose does consultation ultimately serve? Asking people what they value should leave open the possibility that their answers meaningfully influence the decision.
Quebec may ultimately conclude that the health case for permanent standard time outweighs the preference for later sunsets expressed by most respondents to its consultation. It may decide otherwise. Neither outcome follows automatically from a scientific recommendation or a public consultation.
Evidence-based policymaking should not mean passing scientific recommendations directly into legislation. Its purpose is to ensure that political decisions are informed by the best available knowledge, not to eliminate the need for political judgment.
Scientific expertise can tell governments a great deal about the consequences of their choices. It cannot always tell them which choices a democratic society ought to make. We can agree on what moving the clocks will do and still disagree about what that hour is worth.