Over the last half a century plus, the Supreme Court of Canada has given a definition to clergy that is broad and expansive. It includes imams, rabbis, and people in religious traditions that do not have titles for their leadership, such as the Brethren. It started actually with the Jehovah’s Witnesses challenging conscription during the Second World War. The men were recognized as religious leaders, and then they had elders. The Supreme Court of Canada has developed this broad and expansive definition.
In the Gruenke case, clergy-parishioner communications were redefined to be religious communications, so that it could apply in religious communities. In the reference re same-sex marriage, the concept used by the Supreme Court of Canada was religious officials and religious officiants. Amending section 176 to “religious officials”, or “religious officiants” would solve the problem, as would leaving it as is and working with the fact that the courts have already defined “clergy” to be more broad.
The reality is that the other sections of the Criminal Code that were referenced in an email I received from a member of cabinet don't fully cover the disruption of religious rights and ceremonies. Some of the penalties are quite strong and really should not be exercised as an indictable offence except in indictable situations. I'll stop there.