Indeed, and there is ample case law from the Supreme Court of Canada that provides guidance to judges as to how to apply that section of the Charter.
R v. Oakes was one of the seminal cases in that regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Oakes
I feel like in the US, states, the federal government and the judiciary tend to be more adversarial and this can be quite useful.
Apart from the quarantine requirements and possibly your point about free expression (though I'm not sure which incident that refers to and you provided no references), none of the rest of that list is under the purview of the federal government and is instead decided upon by the provinces.
In case you aren't familiar, Canadian provinces have near total control over most areas, with the federal government typically stepping in only in areas that were explicitly granted to it. The provinces, for instance, are responsible for all healthcare related decisions within their borders. The federal government licenses drugs and treatments as a centralized body for all provinces, though I believe here too the provinces can take some steps on their own. Provinces can equally ignore the charter rights of citizens for a set period of time by invoking a specific clause when passing legislation (it's been done several times recently). Provinces wholly own their mineral rights, including into the waters on their borders.
The point I am making with this explanation is that the issues the convoy began protesting (that truckers had to be vaccinated to cross the US/Canada border) made sense to protest federally. Once it was apparent the US had implemented the same rule (coming into effect before Canada, if I remember rightly), the protest became about other mandates. These other mandates are purely provincial jurisdiction and the federal government could only hope to convince the Premiers to do what they ask. The protest is misplaced in its entirety at this point, which is why there is no cohesive direction.
In terms of the targeting of the protests — I agree, it makes little sense. But it’s a bunch of angry, not-so-rational people. In any case, I suspect the federal government does have a lot of sway, and would still be able influence quite a lot. Trudeau has a pen and a phone, as Obama would say. I’m sure that the lifting of the border exemptions was not unilateral on either side, and there are symbolic things that federal government could do (such as setting an expiration vaccine requirements for domestic air travel).
In the end, I think Trudeau has backed himself into a corner. He probably could have preempted this by “listening to the science” and recommending a relaxation plan with a reasonable timeframe (even if it relied on provincial cooperation) before the convoy reached Ottawa — for example, the UK announced exactly this in mid-January (well before the convoy). Instead he politicized the issue with his “unacceptable views” speech, and pissed a lot of people off. Now, he has little that he can do directly (and the things above are probably off the table, since they require back-tracking) and is arguably making an even bigger mess of it (refusal to meet, going into hiding, now declaring emergency measures).
I suspect that the current rush to open in many US states is a recognition of the same underlying sentiment, and a desire to avoid political issues.
[1] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/covid-19-pandemic-restr...
Pretending to express concern about charter rights with respect to towing some trucks away is quite the theatre.
Meanwhile, Canada spent the last two years stomping on charter rights: mobility (provincial borders closed, unjustified quarantine requirements even for vaccinated Canadians), free expression (court orders to silence anti-vaxxers), and free assembly (unvaccinated in Quebec are unable to attend weddings, funerals, religious services or pretty much anything with over 25 people) to name a few. Ironically, a lot of these are the things that actually caused the protests.
It’s been disappointing to see judges go along with it all (Canada has a big opt-out for charter rights, in that “reasonable limits” are allowed if they can be “demonstrably justified”), but quite ridiculous to see that statement in this context.