You raise a very interesting point. Some studies we've heard about suggest Canadian forests are a net source of carbon dioxide rather than a sink, because of trees dying and being cut. That flies in the face of the recent report by the national round table, which shows sequestration of 100 million tonnes per year.
But without debating what's right and what's wrong and where Canada's forests are going to stand in the future--because there's a lot of uncertainty there--my suggestion would be that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we're looking at a made-in-Canada plan, it should promote, incentivize, and motivate the right type of behaviour that's going to increase the amount of carbon dioxide that's sequestered, irrespective of where we're going to stand ten, twenty, or fifty years from now.