Is time running out on changing clocks twice a year? U.S. Sunshine Protection Act may hold key

Last March, after a surprising unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate chamber, it seemed that time may have runout on the age-old practice of changing clocks twice a year.

The problem, however, was that some senators weren't exactly aware of the ramifications of theirunanimous vote to make daylighttime permanent.

That means that similar legislation, reintroduced last week, may notfly through the Senate as easily this time around. And itraised questions as to whether there might be a bright future for Canadianswhosupport keepingdaylight time all year.

"Personally, I'm more negative than I was last year," said Thomas Gray, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Texas at Dallas. "Itpassed the Senate last year, but it definitely passed because people weren't paying attention."

U.S. bill stalled,expired, reintroduced

This Saturday, most Canadians and Americans will be setting their clocks ahead an hour as part of daylight savingtime, meaningdarker mornings, but more sunlight in the evenings.In the fall, clocks are moved back an hour, reverting to standard time.

However, some lawmakers in the U.S. are trying to end the biannual routine and establish daylighttime throughout the year.

The Senate approved the proposed bill, called the Sunshine Protection Act, through a procedure known as unanimous consent, meaning it was passed through voice vote only, bypassing the normal debate time and vote count.

But the proposed billhad stalled for months in the HouseEnergy and Commerce committee. It later expired at the end of the last session of Congress.

Last week, one of the sponsors and leading crusader of the bill, Republican Florida Senator Marco Rubio, reintroduced the proposed legislationin the Senate.

"This ritual of changing time twice a year is stupid," Rubio said in a statement. "Locking the clock has overwhelming bipartisan and popular support. This Congress, I hope that we can finally get this done."

Provinces cite need for consistency with states

The future of thebill willbe closely watched by Canadiansseeking to make daylighttime the norm. Some provinces have been promising for years to ditch the time change, but have cited a need for consistency with U.S. states for the delays.

"We are waiting for what's happening in the United States because there is a great benefit to alignment, especially for key provinces that have trade at stake," saidUniversity of British Columbia (UBC) business professor Werner Antweiler, who has followed theissue.

WATCH| B.C. Premier explains why permanent move to daylight time on hold:

B.C. Premier David Eby still waiting on U.S. before abandoning yearly time change

2 years ago

Duration 0:30

B.C. passed legislation in 2019 to stay on daylight time but wants to make the change in concert with the entire West Coast.

British Columbia Premier David Ebysaidthe province's position of wanting to end the biannual time switchandremain "in-sync" with West Coast American states hasn't changed

In B.C., legislation was passed four years ago to allow the province to permanently stay on daylight time.But then-premier John Horgan said the change would depend on Washington, Oregon and California doing the same.

In Ontario, Premier Doug Ford has said a switch would require New York state to also ditch the time change, while Quebec Premier Franois Legault has said he is open to making daylighttime permanent.

Supporters of year-round daylight time say it wouldwouldenable children to play outdoors later,reduce car crashes,seasonal depression and crime.

Medical community supports standard time

Somein the medical communityalso oppose the twice a year time switch, concerned that springing forward comes with increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. But they advocate for keepingstandard time all yearbecause they saydarker mornings are not in syncwith the body'snatural circadian rhythms.

Some states have introduced legislation to end thechanging of clocks, with some states proposing to do it only if neighbouring states do the same. And as theWashington Post reported,at least 19 states in recent years have enacted laws or passed resolutions that would allow them to impose year-round daylighttime.

The issue is a rare one in D.C. in that it's not specific to just one party there are Republican and Democratic supporters and opponents.

"It's somewhat of a regional issue," said Gray, thepolitical science professor, who was working in D.C.last March as a congressional fellowand was there during the vote.

He said many senators were shocked when the bill passed the Senate andsome thought they were voting on something "totally innocuous."

The senators, he said, were asked by media outlets why they voted as they did. "And then they answer 'I did what now? What did I do?' "

Sen.John Thune, for example, whose job it was to count votes as a minority whip, learned the legislation had passed from reporters, the Washington Post reported at thetime.

"Whose bill is it?" Thune asked."It passed?"

Majority whip Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.),also learned from the media thatthe legislation had passed to make the spring forwardpermanent."Made what permanent?" he asked.

Gray believes the vote may have inspired those opposed to the bill to take action and be less complacent. Now, he says, both sides are fighting vigorously about the issue."Which, to me, lowers the chance that it ultimately succeeds."

LISTEN | How to prepare your sleep scheduleto spring forward:

The Dose23:26How can I sleep better around Daylight Saving Time?

For most people, Daylight Saving Time disrupts their sleep schedule. But thankfully Dr. Elliott Lee, medical director of the Sleep Disorders Clinic at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, has some ways to prepare for the time change this weekend.For transcripts of this series, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/podcastnews/the-dose-transcripts-listen-1.6732281

ButAntweiler, the UBC business professor, is more optimistic, largely because the House is now run by Republicans, so the bill introduced by one of their own will be easier to pass.

"Thelast House was run by Nancy Pelosi, andshe didn't really have much time for focusing on an agenda that wasn't close to theirs," he said.

"And even though [the bill]was bipartisan, it basically got stuck in a committee. It wasn'tmoved forward for what appearedto be political considerations."