Mr. Speaker, I have only been in the House four years, but in that time I have never heard the use of such extreme language and such unfair language as I have just heard from the member who spoke previously.
We abuse our privilege as parliamentarians when we make exaggerated statements that we cannot make outside the House without being sued.
This talk of killer toys, polluted toys, when she knows full well that she has the protection of the Chamber to use that language, I do not think is something that is very admirable.
In fact, this whole thing springs from a Greenpeace report which says that there is a possibility of danger with phthalates, which are actually ethylhexylphthalate, a chemical softener used in polyvinyl chlorides, plastics, and in baby's soothers and that type of product.
Greenpeace raised a legitimate concern when it pointed out that there may be some possibility that this type of material existing in these toys could be leeched out when the child sucks on the toy.
However, the Greenpeace report goes into no detail whatsoever about the alleged toxic qualities of these phthalates. If the member opposite had taken the time to look up the various reports that have been done by Environment Canada and Health Canada, she would have discovered that there is little evidence found by the government that phthalates are a serious problem in the environment.
It is very easy to condemn a product when it gets headlines. But we have to take a responsible attitude to this problem. There is no evidence that these phthalates have any effect except over a very long term. Greenpeace has not supplied the evidence of its laboratory studies and the member opposite is obviously is not prepared to supply the evidence either.