Oh, um, by the way: I have read numerous times the claim that "any LDS with employees" must comply with the air testing requirements of the OHSA. Sorry but that ain't necessarily so either. I suspect the underlying assumption employees would be instructing students for money gave rise to the claim, but it still doesn't apply:
"Application
2. (1) This Regulation applies in relation to,
(a) any diving operation; and
(b) any function in support of a diving operation. O. Reg. 629/94, s. 2 (1).
(2) Despite subsection (1), this Regulation does not apply in relation to,
(a) recreational diving, including any diving operation whose purpose is to train people for recreational diving;
(b) any diving operation in which the only underwater breathing equipment used is snorkelling equipment;
(c) a dive the sole purpose of which is to respond to an unforeseen emergency situation involving imminent danger to the life, health or safety of any person, if the dive is undertaken voluntarily; or
(d) any function in support of a diving operation described in clause (a) or (b) or any dive described in clause (c). O. Reg. 629/94, s. 2 (2); O. Reg. 155/04, s. 1. "
The fact of the matter is that this legislation really only covers commercial diving operations.
Now I am all in favour of breathing good quality air -- above or below the waterline -- but please try to stick to the facts. Some of the rhetoric in the 25 page "Air Quality Certificate" diatribe was bordering on libelous.
edit Ontario diver: you posted while I was typing. This note was not aimed at you in spite of the order of our respective posts. That said, I don't know why people keep referring to Z180.1. CSA says it doesn't apply and the Occupational Health and Safety Act clearly references CSA Z275.2 for diving air.
Z180.1 only applies to Mines and Mining plants (R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 854, as amended to O. Reg. 31/04) and Designated Substance Asbestos on Construction Projects and in Buildings and Repair Operations (R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 838, as amended to O. Reg. 104/04)
If someone is worried about complying with the Act, would they not be best served by complying with the appropriate standard?