Canada is surrounded on three sides by oceans. To the north, the Arctic Ocean borders Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. Off the west coast of British Columbia is the Pacific Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean, meanwhile, sits to the east of Canada’s Maritime provinces, which include Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.

Dear Ms. Alvarez,

I am interested in enrolling in Spanish language classes at your school and would like a bit more information. Having reviewed the course information on your website, I’m excited about the variety of special activities offered in your classes and would like to enroll for the next semester. However, I’d like your advice as to which course and level would be most suitable for me.

I have been studying Spanish at another local language school for the past three months, but I find that the teaching style is ineffective for my learning preferences. We are required to do a lot of self-study and are expected to teach ourselves the content before attending class. This is a real challenge because I have a full-time job and don’t have time to complete the four hours of homework assigned each week. As a result, I often feel lost in the class because I haven’t properly understood the content and the teacher doesn’t explain it well. The manner in which the courses are taught at my current school is not working for me. The main reason I chose to take Spanish classes was for fun, but so far my experience has been stressful. However, I think that the curriculum at your school looks really fun and interesting, especially the practical exercises such as cooking, dancing, and watching Spanish movies.

I would appreciate your advice on course options. I’m looking for a class that focuses specifically on listening and speaking skills so that I am comfortable using the language when traveling. I have already studied the basics such as introductions and greetings, describing daily routines, and giving directions. After looking at your curriculum, I can’t decide whether your Beginner Level 2 or 3 class would be most appropriate. I would really appreciate your advice. Oh, perhaps we could arrange an interview by telephone so that you could suggest an appropriate level for me. You can reach me by email at this address or by phone at 902-244-4444 in the evenings after 6 p.m.

I look forward to hearing from you!

Regards,

Erin LeBlanc

A. Matches made of wood splinters and dipped in sulphur, a chemical element, date back to tenth-century China. However, some Chinese scholars speculate that women may have invented matches as early as 577 CE, at a time when they were unable to freely search for tinder due to threat of attack from invaders. This ""fire inch-stick"" technology seems to have evolved separately in nineteenth-century Europe when, in Paris in 1805, chemist Jean Chancel created matches that burst into flame when dipped in sulphuric acid.

B. The next generation of matches relied on friction to produce a flame. These “strike anywhere” matches ignited when the tip, containing the necessary chemicals to produce combustion, was struck against a rough surface. Although developed in 1827 in England by a chemist named John Walker, they were commercialized by Samuel Jones. Due to Jones’s efforts, these “Lucifers” became popular in various European countries and led to increased tobacco use.

C. In France, in 1831, Charles Sauria developed a new type of match made with white phosphorus, another chemical element. Effective even on rainy days and free of the pungency that assailed the nose when Chancel’s and Walker’s matches were lit, these matches gained mass production and worldwide use. Unfortunately, this next generation of matches was unsafe for the labourers who manufactured them: workplace exposure to phosphorus vapour caused deterioration of the jaw bone. Despite a workers’ strike, a vigorous information campaign, and voluntary discontinuation in a few European countries, the majority of countries persisted in manufacturing white phosphorus matches until 1906, when the process was finally banned under the law.

D. Gradually, factory owners replaced white phosphorus with red phosphorus, a considerably less poisonous chemical that is still used in matches today. In fact, a single state-of-the-art match factory in Sweden produces millions of boxes of tiny matches daily using red phosphorus and wood splinters from aspen trees. The red phosphorus is mixed with powdered glass or some other substance to create a rough striking surface, which is then safely positioned on the outside of the matchbox containing the aspen splinters. Only when the match is struck against the surface will it ignite. These “safety matches” were developed in Sweden, in 1844, by Gustaf Pasch, although it was Joshua Pusey who invented the matchbook in 1889 as an alternative to the matchbox. Pusey’s patent was challenged by the Diamond Match Company, which had invented a similar matchbook; the difference was that their striking substance was on the outside, whereas Pusey’s was on the inside.

E. Not given in any of the above paragraphs.

Following the advice of experts, more and more health-conscious consumers are consuming fish at least twice a week for the heart-healthy benefit of essential omega-3 fatty acids. Nutritionist Andy Veinot not only urges consumers to ensure their fish choices contain sufficient levels of omega-3 fatty acids, but also to verify that the fish is free of contaminants. Veinot adds that the latter is usually not applicable to Canada due to federal regulations.

Aquaculture, or fish farming, produces about one third of the world’s seafood. Most of the shrimp, salmon, and tilapia found in grocery stores is farmed. “If we didn’t have aquaculture, we wouldn’t have so much fish available,” says Maria Cordova, who prepares fish for her family three times a week. “Farmed fish is more reasonably priced than wild fish and is on hand at the market every day.” Catching farmed fish doesn’t depend on the weather or on government-set quotas, both of which affect fishing in the wild. Department of Aquaculture representative Marcus DeSilva argues that aquaculture helps preserve the ecology of the wild species; thus, overfishing and the endangerment of fish species are less prevalent. “Wild fish may have greater flavour, better appearance, and better nutrition, but farmed fish is more accessible and more ecology-minded,” he says.

Critics of aquaculture are primarily concerned about contaminants. Fishermen control the diets of farmed fish and insert additives in the food. Veinot points out that this is where problems can arise. “The components of the food may not be healthy,” he says. Angela Crispino, president of the Council for Aquaculture Reform, carries the argument further. “The fish farm environment of tightly massed-together fish in the pens causes greater susceptibility to disease and, consequently, the administration of high doses of antibiotics. This is harmful to consumers.” Crispino adds that the water is usually contaminated, either from the fish themselves or from other environmental factors. Nonetheless, medical professionals and nutritionists maintain that many foods contain additives nowadays, but the benefits of eating fish far outweigh any perceived disadvantages.