I believe we can look at Alberta, where the offsets were generated by the private sector in response to a government regulation imposed on certain regulated industries. They went looking for them; the private sector responded.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said in its last studies that if the U.S. price of a carbon dioxide emission were $20 per tonne, agriculture and forestry could put up a total mitigation potential of 21%. If that were to jump to $100 per tonne, which I personally think is quite excessive, you'd be looking at 45%.
This comes right back to the comments made already by my colleague here. We would need to know a heck of a lot of detail to be able to fully answer your direct question. But in concept, for agriculture I want to see a cap and trade system with offsets, because if you're going to regulate the point sources that have been identified already in previous plans of governments in Canada since the introduction of the Kyoto Protocol, I know that agriculture is going to face increases. We're not in a position to do so. We need an offset stream to be able to introduce our voluntary bit. A carbon tax is very simple to administer; it's very easy to collect. But it also further erodes agriculture's opportunities, because we have no place to pass it on.