Article content continued

It also included a graph that predicted years of negative GDP growth.

GDP is a measure of the size of the economy. Since growth would become negative, the economy would shrink. In other words, the province would descend into a near-permanent recession.

Other researchers, including Dale Beugin of the Ecofiscal Commission, have already taken issue with that interpretation of the numbers. Peters joined the chorus, saying the government appears to have confused GDP with the GDP growth rate.

A drop in the growth rate would add up over time, slashing into the economy one year after the other. By contrast, a drop in the level of GDP refers to a single point in the future, comparing a scenario with the carbon tax and one without. In essence, it means the economy would still grow, just by somewhat less.

But Peters — who is also an adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University — dug deeper in his analysis, raising questions about the underlying study.

Based on his analysis of the study, the best sense he can make of the U of R numbers is that they actually point to a slight reduction to the otherwise expected growth rate of one per cent — enough to drive it down to (a positive) 0.87 per cent instead.

While still a hit to the province, it’s nowhere near as drastic as what’s claimed in the government release, which remains on its website.

But the government disagrees with the way Peters looks at the math.

“The Institute’s findings are presented in the same format as the federal government’s CGE models, in which GDP change is the sum of percentage change in each GDP component compared to GDP, not the weighted average,” said the ministry’s statement.