NextFin News - The Bank of Canada is not in a hurry to move interest rates in either direction, and its No. 2 official made the case plain on September 29, 2026. Deputy Governor Toni Gravelle, speaking at the 2026 Canadian Finance Conference in New York, framed the central bank's task as a balancing act between stubborn inflation risks from elevated energy prices and a growth outlook clouded by trade uncertainty. Behind the measured public language, the policy rate has sat at 2.25% for seven straight decisions, inflation is holding at 3% - the top of the bank's 1%-to-3% target range - and crude oil has traded near $100 a barrel. The question is no longer whether the Bank of Canada will act, but which of its two mandates, price stability or growth support, will force its hand first.
The Event: Gravelle Signals Patience While Plumbing Tightens
Gravelle's appearance was not a scheduled policy announcement. There was no rate decision, no updated projection, no Governing Council vote. It was a conference interview - the kind central bankers use to shape expectations without committing to a course of action. But the substance, paired with a separate operational move disclosed the same day, tells a coherent story about where Canadian monetary policy actually stands.
On the policy front, Gravelle discussed the outlook for monetary policy, inflation and the risks facing Canada's economy and financial system. The tone matched the central bank's position since early September, when the Governing Council left the overnight rate at 2.25% for a seventh consecutive meeting and Governor Tiff Macklem said officials were
"prepared to adjust monetary policy as needed"as upside inflation risks increased while new tariffs made growth prospects more uncertain.
On the operational front, the bank moved to ease strain in short-term funding markets. Gravelle said the central bank is trying to reduce upward pressure on Corra - the Canadian Overnight Repo Rate Average - by regularly increasing the size of its two-week repo operations. In a floor system with large settlement balances, that detail matters more than it sounds. When the overnight repo rate drifts above the policy target, banks' actual funding costs rise even though the headline policy rate has not moved. The Bank of Canada was, in effect, managing a quiet tightening that was happening beneath the surface of its unchanged 2.25% stance.
The market read the message. The Canadian dollar traded near 1.42 per U.S. dollar late on September 29, little changed, while Canadian government bond yields held elevated alongside a global bond selloff that pushed the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield to its highest level in 19 years. The loonie's stability was not a vote of confidence; it was the currency of an economy caught between two opposing shocks.
Layer 1: The Two-Front Problem - Tariffs Cut Growth, Oil Lifts Inflation
To understand why the Bank of Canada is frozen in place, start with the two shocks hitting it at once. They pull policy in opposite directions, and each is large enough that ignoring it carries real cost.
On the growth side, trade policy has turned hostile. The breakdown of U.S.-Canada trade talks and the imposition of new U.S. tariffs have raised the cost of doing business across the border that absorbs the majority of Canadian exports. Macklem has said the combination of tariffs and counter-tariffs will raise costs for some businesses and could feed into consumer prices over time, while posing risks to the sustainability of the recovery. The central bank cut its 2026 growth forecast to 1.7% from 1.9%, acknowledging that the trade environment has deteriorated faster than previously assumed.
On the inflation side, energy is the culprit. The protracted conflict between the United States and Iran has curtailed oil-tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and shows no sign of an imminent end. Crude traded near $100 a barrel in the week of September 21, and Canadian headline inflation held at 3% in August - unchanged from July and sitting exactly at the top of the target band. The consumer-price index slipped 0.1% month over month, but the annual rate stayed elevated on gasoline.
Here is the critical detail that keeps the Bank of Canada on the sidelines: the inflation pressure is narrow. Excluding gasoline, inflation was 2.2% in July, and measures of core inflation remained close to 2%. That is the difference between an inflation problem and an energy-price problem. A central bank cannot shoot its way out of an oil shock - higher rates will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz or bring Canadian and U.S. negotiators back to the table. As Macklem put it at the September press conference:
"Monetary policy cannot offset the effects of tariffs or influence global energy prices. What we can do is ensure global developments don't jeopardize price stability in Canada."
So the bank is doing the only thing left: waiting, watching, and keeping its options open. The Governing Council's September 2 statement paired two sentences that capture the entire dilemma. Upside risks to inflation have increased. Growth prospects are more uncertain. Therefore: prepared to adjust monetary policy as needed. That is not guidance. It is a declaration of optionality.
Layer 2: Why This Is Structural on Growth but Cyclical on Inflation
The most important analytical call in this episode is separating what will reverse on its own from what will not. Getting this wrong flips the policy conclusion, and the Bank of Canada's two shocks sit on opposite sides of the line.
The inflation shock is cyclical. It is driven by a commodity price spike, and commodity prices mean-revert. When the Strait of Hormuz reopens or the conflict de-escalates, oil falls, and headline inflation drops back toward core. History is full of these episodes: the 1970s oil shocks were different because they triggered second-round wage-price spirals; the 2008 and 2014 oil moves were not, because core inflation stayed anchored. The evidence that Canada is in the benign category is the core data: in July, CPI-trim and CPI-median were close to 2%, and all-items inflation excluding gasoline was 2.2%. A cyclical inflation shock argues against hiking: you do not tighten policy to fight a price level that is about to fall on its own.
The growth shock is structural. Trade reorientation is not a temporary dip in demand. When tariffs make the U.S. market less accessible, Canadian exporters do not simply wait for conditions to improve - they lose customers, scale back investment, and in some cases shutter capacity. The central bank has acknowledged that tariffs have eroded productive capacity in the country, and capacity that is destroyed does not come back when the news cycle changes. This is a supply-side impairment, not a demand shortfall, which means the usual remedy - cutting rates to stimulate spending - works poorly. Lower borrowing costs cannot rebuild export relationships or undo the uncertainty premium that foreign buyers now attach to Canadian supply.
This asymmetry is what pins the bank to 2.25%. If it hiked to lean against oil-driven inflation, it would damage an economy already structurally impaired by trade policy. If it cut to support growth, it would risk letting 3% headline inflation - sitting at the top of the target range - seep into expectations. The neutral rate that balances these forces is unknowable in real time, which is why the bank has chosen to hold and describe rather than act.
The labor market reinforces the wait-and-see posture. Unemployment edged down to 6.4% in July, but the bank still sees excess supply in the economy - more workers than jobs. That slack is a shock absorber against second-round inflation. It is also a sign that the economy does not need tighter policy. The bank's own words from September capture the calibration:
"We think we got the rate where we think it needs to be right now,"Macklem said, after the fifth straight hold at the time. By the September 2 meeting it was seven in a row.
The Second-Order Channel: When 'On Hold' Is Quietly Tightening
Most coverage of the Bank of Canada stops at the policy rate. That misses the transmission mechanism, and Gravelle's repo comments are the tell. The policy rate is the target; Corra is the actual price banks pay to fund themselves overnight. When Corra trades above target, monetary conditions are tighter than the headline 2.25% suggests - even though the central bank has not moved.
This is the second-order effect of the bank's own balance-sheet normalization. As settlement balances shrink and leveraged positioning in government bonds increases - the same "basis trade" dynamics that have strained U.S. repo markets - the floor system gets leaky. Liquidity that used to sit idle now earns more in repo, pulling funding rates up. The bank's response - larger and more regular two-week repo operations - is an admission that implementation is not automatic. It must actively manage the gap between its target and the market.
Why does this matter for the outlook? Because it means "holding steady" is not neutral. Every week that Corra runs a few basis points above target is a week of de facto tightening, transmitted directly to banks' funding desks and, eventually, to the prime rate that Canadian households and businesses actually pay. The prime rate stood at 4.45% as of September. If money-market strain persists, the effective stance of policy drifts restrictive without a single Governing Council vote. That gives the bank some of the inflation-fighting cover it wants - without the political and economic cost of an explicit hike. It is monetary policy by plumbing.
The Counter-Thesis: Don't Overreact to a Transitory Spike
The strongest argument against the bank's cautious hawkish tilt is the simplest: the inflation we are seeing is almost entirely energy, and energy is transitory. Hiking into a structurally weaker economy to fight a gasoline price that may fall on its own would be a policy error with lasting costs. Benjamin Reitzes of BMO Economics summed up the mainstream view after the September decision, noting that with upside inflation risks rising while tariffs cloud growth, the bank is left
"pinned to the sidelines"- and that policymakers should stay patient as those risks evolve.
That argument is correct as far as it goes, and it explains why a hike is not the base case. But it underestimates the asymmetry of the risk. The Bank of Canada's problem is not today's 3% print. It is what happens if 3% stops looking temporary. Minutes from the September deliberations show policymakers agreed that inflation risks had intensified and that rate increases could be required should evidence emerge of higher fuel costs spilling over into the prices of other goods and services. That is the threshold that matters: not the headline number, but the spillover.
So the falsifying signal is precise. If CPI-trim and CPI-median - the core measures that strip out volatile extremes - both print above 2.5% for two consecutive months, the "transitory energy" thesis is broken and a rate hike moves from unlikely to probable. A second falsifier would be wage growth accelerating above trend while unemployment keeps falling, signaling that slack is being absorbed faster than the bank expects. Until either of those prints, the base case holds: hold at 2.25%, watch core, and let oil do what oil does.
Layer 3: What Comes Next, by Time Horizon
Short term - through the October 28 decision. The bank holds at 2.25%. Rhetoric stays balanced but tilted toward vigilance on inflation, because the political and credibility cost of being late on inflation exceeds the cost of appearing patient on growth. The October 28 meeting is the next fixed point on the calendar, followed by December 9. Between now and then, every monthly CPI print and every headline from the Strait of Hormuz will move markets more than usual, because the bank has explicitly made its reaction function data-dependent.
Medium term - 2026 into 2027. The bias is toward hiking, not cutting, if spillover appears. RBC Economics has said it expects the bank to be in a position to gradually raise rates from current levels beginning in 2027, contingent on the Canadian economy continuing to improve and the unemployment rate drifting lower. That path assumes growth holds up. If the trade shock deepens and growth stalls, the hiking path vanishes - and the conversation flips back to cuts.
Long term - the structural ceiling. Here is the uncomfortable truth for anyone expecting a return to the pre-pandemic rate world. Trade reorientation and capacity erosion are structural drags on potential growth. An economy with lower potential growth has a lower neutral interest rate. So even if the bank hikes to 3% or slightly above to defend the inflation target, the ceiling on Canadian rates over the next cycle is probably lower than the inflation fight alone would suggest. The bank is fighting a cyclical inflation spike in a structurally slower economy, and those two facts pull the terminal rate in opposite directions.
Who benefits, who is exposed. Canadian banks are the relative beneficiaries of higher-for-longer rates - net interest margins stay wide as long as the prime rate holds near 4.45% - but they carry the credit risk if the growth shock deepens and loan losses rise. Fixed-rate mortgage holders rolling into renewal face higher payments if hikes resume. Exporters tied to the U.S. market are the clearest losers, bearing the tariff cost directly. Energy producers benefit from sustained high oil prices, but the rest of the economy pays the inflation tax.
The Bank of Canada's real dilemma is not choosing between growth and inflation. It is that the tool for one worsens the other, and patience has an expiration date measured in inflation expectations, not quarters. For now, 2.25% is less a destination than a waiting room - and the bank is watching the door.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
