Wouldn't 5.40 (f) disagree with this statement? In my experience in 217 organisations 5.40 (f) has always been expanded to show a training requirement for "appointed pilots" if they do not hold any Training & Checking approvals.
Traditionally all ICUS conducted was line training for the purpose of a command upgrade or some other qualification and was therefore the domain of the CAR217 organisation. All pilots conducting this training were appointed for this purpose in accordance with the guidelines in their Check and Training Manual.
An FO, with a CPL, who is “cleared to line”, can log ICUS for the purpose of accruing the hours required for the issue of an ATPL outside of the CAR 217 organisation as he/she is not undergoing training.
Aquaplaner's statement indicates that anyone can act as an ICUS Captain, which is not strictly correct, as they must be appointed, and the appoint process is tied to the Training 7 Checking manual.
I did not say that anyone can act as an ICUS Captain. They do have to be appointed, but this appointment can take place outside of the CAR217 organisation.
Its not intended for FO's to claim all their flying as ICUS on the handling leg.
I am sure this was true when the documents were written. However, the effect of the wording is that they can.