I see the RCMP page above shows a picture of what kind of looks like a metal Stack-on "safe", in a way suggesting it is a container- the RCMP seems to be an all- knowing authoritarian body ( they should be abolished like the UN)

Here are the actual regs-
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-98-209.pdf

See Barnes case regarding "Safe"

http://firearmslaw.ca/wp-content/upl...-Judgement.pdf

16] Within the context of section 7 itself, it is apparent that Parliament considered a "safe ... that is securely locked" to be a more secure method of storage than a "container or receptacle ... that is kept securely locked and is constructed so that it cannot be readily broken into or open". This is evident from the fact that the guns stored pursuant to section 7(b)(i) must be rendered inoperable by a.-secure locking device whereas the firearms stored in accordance with section 7(b)(ii) have no such requirement. Moreover, containers and receptacles may be constructed of wood or plastic, as opposed to the more durable metal from which a safe is traditionally made.

Even where a gun storage unit is described as a "safe", there may be considerable variations in its characteristics, including size, weight, wall thickness, the location of the hinges, the nature of the locking mechanism and resistance to water or fire: see, for example, exhibits 3A, 3B, 7 A, 7B, 10, 11, 13. Unlike jurisdictions such as California, 5 Parliament has not chosen to designate minimum standards for gun safes or certify certain types of safes as meeting the regulatory requirements."

20] The concerns expressed by Mr. Press about the vulnerability of gun storage units, such as those belonging to Mr. Barnes, to bolts cutters, sledge hammers and other methods of forced entry are understandable. Yet, Mr. Cornblum's observation, that given time and the right degree of skill, all safes are vulnerable to being broken into, is a valid one.

[21] Since a breach ofthe regulation leads to a criminal charge, there must be a discernable standard for licensed individuals to meet in storing automatic firearms: seeR. v. Smillie, supra at ~35. In my view, an interpretation of the word "safe" in its ordinary, dictionary meaning of a metal container with a secure lock is consistent with the objectives of the legislation and the intent of Parliament.
[22] I find that the cabinets in which the defendant's prohibited firearms were stored fall within the definition of a· safe. Both ofthe lockers in which the prohibited firearms were stored were made of steel. Each cabinet was securely locked: one by a key and a padlock; the other by a locking system that uses a key to unbolt rods in the door from the frame of the unit. Indeed, despite their disagreement on other issues, the Crown and the defence expert both accepted.that the units were securely locked. The Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was non-compliance with the regulation. The charges are dismissed