If I get a bit incoherent or miss something in this post, it's because I'm getting really groggy. I apologize in advance.
Refusal to put the 407fps rule into writing aside, I've always considered RCMP's presence at CITT appeals to be very restricted. They provide what is asked of them, not to present any other information despite potential revelance, even if they were so inclined to do so (evidentally not). CITT's cookie-cutter approach to rejecting appeals would seem to support that they are also not looking for new or voluntary information from the RCMP experts, or any other experts for that matter, considering their rejection of academic studies on the physical dangers of projectiles traveling around 1J or less.
As such, I'm not sure if the acceptance of pellet guns that are replica firearm is because of the positive or negative factors. Positive factor would be intentional discrimination by the enforcement agencies (CITT and RCMP) against airsoft guns. Negative factor would be sheer ignorance on the part of the enforcement agency (CITT), such as the misconception that pellet guns were somehow exempt because they're considered more 'native' and/or 'historical' to Canada. It could even be a mix of both. Although functionally the result is the same, yes to pellet guns and no to airsoft guns, it matters that we're sure of which one (or both) it is for the purpose of formulating a countermeasure.
"The Bird of Hermes is My Name, Eating My Wings to Make Me Tame."