Every country in the world has a similar policy. Non-citizens don't have the "rights" of citizens, they have "privileges" which are defined by the government. The Charter also uses "reasonable" as a discriminate quite a bit more than than the US Constitution; and guess who definites "reasonable".
The same applies to foreigners visiting Canada. The Charter makes careful distinctions between citizens and "everyone"; and there are additional limitations on how non-citizens can exercise those "everyone" rights.
The US is generally quite a bit more liberal about giving out privileges to foreigners than most other countries, including Canada (although Canada is relatively liberal).
The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that because the notwithstanding clause exists, an Act of Parliament can not be seen as violating the Charter. What's more, although technically Canadian courts can declare a law unconstitutional, Canada's constitution gives the federal (or any provincial!) government the power to overrule that decision.
Parliamentary systems are pure democracies; they have nothing like the US checks and balances. What the majority in parliament wants, they get. That's how the dictatorships were established in Zimbabwe and Singapore; there's no need for a coup as long as the ruling party can pass laws to guarantee that it remains the ruling party.
If you're Canadian, you might want to take a closer look at what your government is doing before commenting on domestic US issues.
Reasonable people would recognize that there is a vast difference between wiretaps on suspected domestic criminals and wiretaps on suspected international terrorists. The latter is, in effect, a form of espionage. No country requires that espionage activities go through a judge.
It is doubtful that data obtained from espionage would be admissible in court for a criminal prosecution. For example, it would be a bad idea to use them for eco-terrorists since that would deprive the prosecution of much of their evidence.
-- Mark --