Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I wish to reply to another question relating to international affairs asked yesterday by the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), in respect to the ratification of the Canada-France convention. Following approval by the Canadian parliament, the convention concerning the rights of nationals and commercial and shipping matters between Canada and France was ratified by the king in respect of Canada on June 30, 1933. No steps have yet been taken to arrange for the exchange of ratifications under article 21 of the convention, as ratification has not yet been effected by the appropriate authorities of the French republic. A Senate committee last week made a report favouring ratification of this convention.

VIMY PILGRIMAGE On the orders of the day:

Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa East):

I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret). Will returned soldiers in the employ of the government under the prevailing rate system of pay enjoy the same rights and privileges that have been extended to such returned soldiers as are in the employ of the government as civil servants under the Civil Service Act, to attend the Vimy pilgrimage in the coming summer?

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):

It is the intention of the government to extend such privileges to all classes of civil servants who are returned soldiers. Those employed under the prevailing rates are appointed by the civil service commission, but it has been represented to me that the leave regulations of that commission do not necessarily apply to all of them. In order to remove all doubt I have given instructions that steps be taken to extend to that class of civil servants working under the prevailing rates the same privileges as have been extended to other classes of civil servants who are returned soldiers, in order to allow them to attend the Viray pilgrimage if they so desire.

Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):

Before Mr. Speaker leaves the chair, on a question of privilege I should like to ask his honour's ruling in connection with a ruling of the acting chairman (Mr. McPhee) of the committee against myself yesterday. I was reading-

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think the hon. member is not in order in asking for a ruling at the present time, if he did not appeal the ruling when it was given.

Mr. MacNICOL:

If your honour retires from the chair without granting me the privilege, and the committee has the same acting chairman (Mr. McPhee) it had yesterday afternoon, he will perhaps rule again that editorials praising the government's legislation are a reflection on it.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

Mr. MacNICOL:

I want to find out from your honour what constitutes a reflection.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think the hon. member should have raised the point when the question came up.

Mr. MacNICOL:

I did, your honour, but had I challenged the ruling it would have meant an appeal to the house, and I did not like to disturb your honour in the afternoon when you were resting.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think the hon. member is out of order.

Motion (Mr. Dunning) agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaubien in the chair.

Mr. BARBER:

What is the United States tariff on commodities similar to those included in items 503 and 504?

Mr. DUNNING:

That question will arise

under schedule II of the agreement. I have before me the details for schedule I.