Well, frankly the govt announced on Friday about moving flights to 3 airports and its Sunday and we heard no more details about this very limited measure around international flights. Over that timeframe, tens of thousands of people have entered the country with no screenings likely which seem against this idea of "flattening the curve".
Now the issue is to you that is reasonable but in a world where news is flowing at a million miles an hour that seems very um ... 'passive' to some.
I agree with what you said that we should not go crazy here but the charter has not been really tested to a national emergency of this scale yet.
We are heading into some uncharted waters here and we are a country not used to invoking rather drastic measures which may come into conflict with the charter but whenever we talk about the charter it seems we always forget section 1.
according to Wiki, there are 17 international airports in Canade, plus numerous others that are considered Ports of Entry by the CBSA under various terms. Don't forget that "international" includes US. I am certainly in no position to give a detailed answer to international flight operations, but I have to believe that it is a highly complex exercise to move all of this to three. In additional to the logistics of terminal space and capacity, fuel, servicing, crewing, CBSA, etc. etc., those three designated locations better be fully ramped up to be able to handle who and whatever comes down the ramp. To do so without a detailed plan in place is to invoke a repeated on 'Operation Yellow Ribbon after 9/11. Many planes landed at unscheduled place, but many were turned back to their point of origin. Perhaps it will become easier if air travel grinds to halt on its own.
You are correct that Section 1 is the lens of the Charter, but the Charter informs - or at least should - the actions and decisions of the State and not simply stand as a post facto guide to the courts. I'm no lawyer but I would take a wild guess that locking up somebody, or thousands of somebodies, who are completely asymtomatic would be viewed by anyone as a "reasonable limit and demonstrably justified".
There has been much talk on here about arbitrarily detaining people who are found to be not practicing social isolation (ignoring the differences between social isolation, self-quarantining and being in hospital isolation - I walked my dog today, am I a bad person?). You mentioned in an earlier post that some of your friends were going out clubbing. Should they be locked up? Taken home? To where By who? If the state makes something mandatory, it becomes the law of the state, not just a word to make a recommendation sound more important.
I suppose we could have a system that allows the state pass any law that it feels is necessary and subject to no oversight, and hope it is always with the best of intentions. History has shown us that often doesn't go well.
;Composite=(type=URL,url=https://images.radio-canada.ca/v1/assets/elements/16x9/outdated-content-2020.png),gravity=SouthEast,placement=Over,location=(0,0),scale=1)
