Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

The recovery from the pandemic-induced recession has created the toughest and most important test yet for the Bank of Canada’s core inflation gauges. They’re not exactly acing it.

With the debate raging over whether Canada’s rising inflation rate (3.6 per cent in May) is a growing risk or a soon-to-pass tempest of temporary pandemic-related hiccups, the central bank’s three preferred measures of core inflation should be clarifying what truly reflects underlying inflationary pressures. Instead, they are adding layers to the haze.

Depending on which of the three gauges you look at, core inflation in May was either a smouldering 2.7 per cent (CPI-trim), a middling 2.4 per cent (CPI-median) or a tame 1.8 per cent (CPI-common). The range among those readings is the widest in more than a decade.

Story continues below advertisement

This almost certainly wasn’t what the Bank of Canada had in mind four years ago when it decided to drop its old gauge of core inflation, CPIX, which excluded the eight historically most volatile components of the consumer price index (CPI), in favour of the triumvirate of new tools. CPI-trim, CPI-median and CPI-common were carefully designed to do a better job of filtering out the transitory noise in the overall data and show us the true inflationary pressures underneath. And by applying three different lenses, the view into core inflation was supposed to get that much clearer.

Instead, the central bank has been trying to understand the sharp divergence among its core inflation measures during the pandemic and assess their usefulness. It devoted a special box in April’s quarterly Monetary Policy Report to the topic, a sure sign of how seriously it takes the problem. The bank acknowledged that the measures were susceptible to distortions brought on by the unique and sudden nature of the pandemic.

One thing that’s clear, when you look back at their historical movements, is that they are particularly out of sync when the economy is rebounding from a significant contraction or outright recession. Major divergences among the core readings can be seen in the early stages of the recovery following the Great Recession of 2008-2009 and the oil shock of 2015.

Regardless of the reasons behind this phenomenon, that’s particularly problematic for the central bank: Having a good handle on underlying inflationary pressures is critical to the timing of monetary policy tightening during the recovery phase. In the current context, the bank has had little choice but to look beyond its three preferred measures in assessing core inflation.

“Given the unique shifts in demand and supply and the resulting price movements caused by the pandemic and related containment measures, alternative measures of core inflation may provide additional useful insights into the assessment of underlying inflation,” the bank said in the April report.

On that front, Bank of Nova Scotia published a paper last week suggesting that the central bank’s past quest for more sophisticated core-inflation measures may have been misguided. Scotiabank’s research found that a simple measure of CPI excluding food, energy and indirect taxes – an old standby of the core-inflation biz – does a better job of revealing underlying inflationary pressures than the Bank of Canada’s three preferred gauges do, both individually and in combination.

(Incidentally, CPI inflation excluding food and energy was 2.4 per cent in May, up from 1.8 per cent in April.)

Story continues below advertisement

“Given our results, we think that the Bank of Canada should consider focusing its attention to the CPI excluding food, energy and the effect of indirect taxes and, to a lesser extent, to the CPI-common to evaluate the level of fundamental inflation pressures,” the Scotiabank report concluded. It noted that, not only has this measure been “significantly better” than the central bank’s favoured gauges at forecasting total inflation over the past four years, but its simplicity makes it “easier to communicate and analyze by markets.”

Scotiabank added that it intends to rely on this measure in its own macroeconomic model from now on.

It’s certainly food for thought. The Bank of Canada has often argued that a key reason for its use of an inflation target of 2 per cent to guide monetary policy is that it’s straightforward, highly visible (the data is published every month) and easy to understand. Simpler core measures offer these same virtues. Maybe the bank’s core inflation toolkit, which isn’t working so well right now anyway, could benefit from a bit of dumbing down.

Your time is valuable. Have the Top Business Headlines newsletter conveniently delivered to your inbox in the morning or evening. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies