Canada's forests are actually hurting our climate change efforts

Well, here's a thing. Canada's apparently endless boreal forest, which most people have taken to be our carbon-sink and oxygen-emitting buffer against climate change, actually turn out to be a climate change liability, and have been for over 15 years!
Yes, Canada's trees, like trees everywhere, absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere as they grow. But they also emit CO2 when they die and decompose, or when they burn. Up until recently, the absorption of CO2 has always outweighed the creation of new CO2, and the forests could reasonably be considered a boon to the country as regards our contribution to global warming.
However, since 2001, the hugely increased number of forest fires and tree deaths from insect infestations - in fact, the results of global warming - have more than outweighed the benefits of our trees as a carbon sink, at least using data from the two-thirds or so of our forests that are considered "managed". In some years (like 2015, for example, which saw a record number of forest fires) massively so. And I had no idea!
I was equally ignorant of the fact that, for years, Canada has been excluding forests (and wetlands and farmland) from our official accounting for CO2 emissions, as we are "allowed" to do under the UN's FCCC regulations, which has therefore significantly understated our emissions. Even worse, for the last couple of years, we have been including the beneficial carbon sink effects of our huge forests, but excluding the negative effects of the forest fires and insect infestations that go with them, which has skewed our CO2 reporting even further.
And yet, even with this kind of creative accounting  we are still falling far short of our UN climate change commitments. I'm embarrassed that we are resorting to these kinds of disingenuous accounting tactics. I'm even more embarrassed that, even then, we are doing so badly in the struggle against global warming.