https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/tamara-lich-bail-hearing-february-19-1.6358307
This article describes how one of the defendants in the trucker convoy protest cases in Canada cited his rights under the "First Amendment" as a defense:
"He also questioned whether the Emergencies Act — which was debated Saturday in the House of Commons — was implemented legally, at times confusing the numbered amendments found in the U.S. Constitution with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"Honestly? I thought it was a peaceful protest and based on my first amendment, I thought that was part of our rights," he told the court.
"What do you mean, first amendment? What's that?" Judge Julie Bourgeois asked him."
Obviously, the Canadian Constitution doesn't have a First Amendment. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms does include a free speech provision (Section 2b - and yes, I admit I had to look up the number). But courts interpret it less broadly than the US Supreme Court does with the Free Speech Clause of the US First Amendment. Though some of the things the protestors did would not be protected in the US, either (e.g. - blocking border crossings).
This is just one of many examples of how US constitutional law influences people around the English-speaking world, in part through the reach of US pop culture. Many Canadians know about the First Amendment because they watch a lot of US movies and TV and read US books. The average English-speaking Canadian probably sees the US Bill of Rights referenced in pop culture a lot more often than the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Similarly, surveys find that some 60% of Australians believe the Australian Constitution includes a Bill of Rights. In fact it does not! The Australian framers copied many elements of the US Constitution, but deliberately omitted the Bill of Rights. Australian legal scholar George Williams speculates that public misunderstanding of this reality is caused by Australians' consuming a lot of US popular culture, especially movies and TV shows.
Ironically, here in the US, surveys show that much of the public can't name most of the rights protected by the First Amendment.
On a slightly more serious note, I think much of what the trucker protestors did was unjust and reprehensible, even as I also think they have many legitimate grievances. At the same time, it is also the case that the government of Justin Trudeau could and should have dealt with the situation without resorting to the draconian Emergencies Act. Whether the government's actions were legally justified is an issue currently being fought out in Canadian courts (albeit NOT under the First Amendment).