Just on the terms, yes, the charter uses the term “freedom of...expression”, and that is the proper legal term, but the term “free speech” is basically a shorthand for that. “Expression” includes more than speech—I mean, the clothes you wear on your back could be a form of expression—but the two terms are essentially used synonymously when you're talking in this kind of context.
That right in the charter has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in, I would say, a utilitarian way, which is unfortunate. What I mean by that, as I alluded to in my statement, is that the Supreme Court has tended to say that free speech is free when it is useful to society. That, of course, means that it's not really free speech at all, because the right to free speech, like all charter rights, essentially, is supposed to act as a space for individuals to resist the interests of the group in the form of the government. If it is allowed that we infringe on these rights because the group wants to, then they're not really functioning as rights at all. They're functioning as something else, as a means to establish a collective interest.
In that sense, I think we have the wrong end of the stick in this country about what our charter rights mean, in particular the right to free speech.