I don't think there is enough. First of all, there isn't a regulatory framework that determines whether or not they should be there in the first place. There's an assumption in the public's mind that if something is on the shelf it's been evaluated and determined to be of acceptable risk, or safe and okay to be on the shelf. That is a false assumption to make.
It's very challenging for Health Canada to do the kinds of inspections that are necessary to address the vast range of products. It's understandable. You can't test everything before it goes on the shelf, nor is there the capacity to do the kind of inspection that I think would be necessary to be able to avoid toxic things being on the shelf. That said, there's probably an argument to be made for increased inspection.
Again, the notion of a materials use approach is an efficiency measure. It says if it's toxic, don't use it unless we've said these are the exceptions, rather than chasing after one product after another and not knowing. In the example you use, that's my greatest concern as well. In the dollar stores, the cheap stuff is economically accessible to children and/or low-income people. It's often the place where you're getting the exposure to phthalates, the exposure to lead, the exposure to various substances that are of concern. It's a social justice issue, a children's health issue, and we need an efficient response to it, I think, that doesn't have to chase down each and every thing every time something comes up.