I take strong issue with at least two of the three main premises of the question, which seem to be as follows:
France and Canada and unnamed other countries have banned the wearing of the hijab, and are representative of the "West" in their attitudes toward "hijab-practicing" Muslims.
Wearing the hijab is an essential part of "hijab-practicing" Muslims' lives.
The "West" criticises the incoming Taliban government of Afghanistan for its brutal suppression of women's rights while turning a blind eye to France and Canada and the other unnamed "Western" nations' abrogation of "hijab-practicing" Muslims' rights.
From this you conclude that the "West" is hypocritical, and by inference imply that the "West" should not criticise the Taliban for how its policies affect women and girls in Afghanistan.
Premises 1) and 3) are flawed. Premise 2) is debatable for Islam in general, but if we limit discussion only to Muslims who believe the premise (of which you seem to be one), it is simply tautological and we can grant it for the purposes of this discussion.
Firstly, French policy is not precisely synonymous with "European" policy and French Canadian policy is not precisely synonymous with "Western" (or even broader Canadian) policy; in
Germany or the USA or the non-French parts of Canada, for example, any such bans are simply unthinkable on constitutional and cultural grounds, respectively. There are many many European countries with growing Muslim populations which are not considering such measures; even Orban's Hungary hasn't threatened to do so, as far as I am aware.1
Secondly, the policies specifically in France and Canada which motivated the question have been heavily criticised by French and Canadian citizens, respectively, along with other "Western" commentators, often on the grounds that such policies are chauvinistic and hypocritical and antithetical to the very values of liberty and pluralism which such policies were ostensibly enacted to uphold. In particular there are fierce debates over precisely your point that these bans might
in the worst case limit the ability for women to leave their homes
for cases in which women feel compelled (be it from inner conviction or familial and communal social pressure) to nevertheless wear the more conservative versions of the hijab or even more restrictive clothing in public. Many progressive people believe these bans have the danger of limiting female participation in broader secular society rather than enhancing it.
So these two major premises seem to fail; the policies are local and limited in scope, the policies in question are quite controversial in countries and regions where they are not in force, and they are hardly uncontroversial in the countries and regions in which they are in force.
There is a deeper premise in the question which I feel is worthy of discussion, and which I believe strikes at the very heart of your question. Namely that the "West" and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (or Islamic theocracies more broadly) are on more-or-less equal footing when it comes to the rights of their citizens and the scope of their policies. Therefore when the "West" criticises one aspect of fundamentalist Islamic theocracy while also pursuing policies designed to limit the freedom of certain expressions of Islam, those criticisms can be dismissed on grounds of hypocrisy.
This is false.
The "West", by and large, is characterised by democratic and open societies in which citizens are free to assemble and express their individual opinions, regardless of whether those opinions agree with the policies of their governments. Citizens of "Western" nations can work in public to try and change policies through democratic means, and if those citizens can convince enough of their fellows, those policies will one day change. Citizens and residents are free to publicly practice whatever religion they wish, or no religion at all, as long as their practice of their religion does not unduly impinge upon the general welfare. This caveat is generally quite narrow, and allows hundreds of millions of people to openly practice tens of thousands of different kinds of religions within these societies.
Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Islamic theocracies more generally, are quite distinct from this mode of governance and citizenship. In Islamic theocracies generally, and under the Taliban in particular, citizens are not free to express opinions contrary to the prevailing government policy; they are not free to publicly practice a religion which is not one of a very small number of variants of officially-recognised faiths; and they are not allowed to conduct themselves in ways which religious authorities disapprove of, whether or not the citizen is a member of the religion shared by the authorities.
France and Germany each have over two thousand mosques within their borders. Canada has more than 90, and America has yet again over two thousand. The "West" has, collectively, thousands more well-attended mosques and millions of Muslim residents. These Muslim communities have been given safe harbour and have been protected under the general laws afforded every citizen for more than a century, and in the last half-decade those communities have been enlarged by millions of refugees which the "West" has admitted to broad acclaim by the citizenry.
The Taliban, by contrast, does not allow the public practice of any religion other than certain kinds of Islam. There are no functioning churches in Afghanistan, no Buddhist temples, no Hindu shrines. It is a totalitarian regime which sets a strict code of conduct upon everyone in the country, under threat of harsh corporal punishment and death, enforced by roving gangs of young men empowered to police the behaviour of their fellow citizens in accordance with the guidelines of a narrow interpretation of a single religion.
You are free to travel to France and advocate publicly for the reversal of the French policy on Islamic dress without any reasonable fear of organised reprisal from the government or from French citizens. While the Taliban rules Afghanistan, you will never be free to travel to Afghanistan and advocate publicly against the Taliban policy on Islamic dress without grave fear for your life.
That is the difference at the root of the "hypocrisy" in the "West" criticising the Taliban even though some "Western" nations have policies which make life marginally more inconvenient for a certain percentage of certain Muslim communities within them. The "West" is simply operating in a different moral universe to the Taliban, a universe in which a policy that negatively impacts a certain percentage of a certain minority is deeply controversial and debated and may yet one day be overturned.
In that moral universe, there is no hypocrisy in a society looking at a totalitarian regime in which one risks dismemberment and death for practicing a minority religion at all and judging them more harshly than that society judges itself.
1 Both Ahmed Tawfik and Jan pointed out sources (in English and German, respectively) which contradict the stricken portions of my answer above. I freely accept the correction; it simply is the case that many European states (especially Western European ones) have contemplated and enforced limited restrictions on Islamic dress.
I will note, however, that both of these sources actually support the thrust of my argument more than they detract from it. The English article, which I assume everyone reading this answer will be able to understand, details how controversial these various measures are within the countries where they've been debated or enacted. The German article focuses on Germany and gives more detail, but from what I have read, the two articles agree.
For example, the then-President of Germany himself, Johannes Rau, publicly commented that he would not want a France-style Germany-wide headscarf ban, stating
I fear that a headscarf ban will be the first step on the road to a laicistic state, which will prohibit religious signs and symbols in the public sphere. I don't want to see that happen. That is not my vision of our country, with its centuries of Christian influence.
It is the case that several German states nevertheless instituted such bans in limited context for certain public employees (most especially for teachers), but it remains generally the case that Muslim women can wear whatever they like in public outside of these jobs. Further, as shown by then-President Rau's comments, these limited measures were and are hardly uncontroversial. Note that it is also illegal for drivers in Germany to wear anything covering their face and eyes while driving, which is justified on public-safety grounds. (Whether this justification is warranted or not, I have long since learned that attempting to talk a German out of a public-safety measure is a bit like attempting to negotiate with the tide.)
Sticking with Germany, where I live and with whose culture and language I am the most familiar (though clearly not perfectly so!) on the European continent, there are and have been many public debates over religious symbols worn in public. Here is one such debate published within the last two weeks by ZDF, a German public broadcaster, in which six people discuss the issue openly on a publicly-funded stage. This debate includes three women and four men (including the moderator). One woman is a Muslim arguing against bans while wearing a hijab, and another woman (who I suspect is an ex-Muslim) is arguing for them; she also heads an organisation for promoting secularism amongst migrants.
If one searches for "Kopftuchdebatte" ("Head-scarf debate") on YouTube or Google more broadly, one can find dozens of discussions similar to the one above, undertaken in print or on video, with one or more people speaking their mind about this issue in public, without fear of reprisal from the government. Such open debates are a feature of "Western" life, and I would be very surprised if they have not occurred in every single country listed in the English Wikipedia article Ahmed linked to.
Now, let's seriously consider what would happen to any group of people comparable to those in that ZDF video, from the producers to the moderator to the participants, if they had attempted to have the exact same conversation in Tehran, or in Jeddah, or lately in Kabul. Let's consider what would happen to the women who wished to travel public roads to reach the debate venue and have their images appear on television without wearing Islamic dress.
Every single one of them would participate in such a discussion at the risk of their lives. The women who did not deign to wear Islamic dress would have been lucky to even make it to the venue before being abducted or arrested and, in the very best case, interrogated about their age and marital status before either being returned to their male guardians or being auctioned off to a man in an arranged marriage.
In Europe, by contrast, Muslims and non-Muslims alike can and do openly advocate for the reversal of these policies. If they can convince enough of their fellow citizens of their case, and those citizens elect or convince their representatives in government, those policies will be changed.
So, to reiterate, I believe the question is not well-posed. The "West" is indeed concerned with European policy on limiting Islamic (and other religious) dress worn in public, as exemplified by the existence of many vigorous public discussions over this issue. Therefore the question's assumption that the "West" is "unconcerned" about such policy is simply factually incorrect.
Secondly, as others have pointed out, the policies between Europe and Afghanistan are not very similar, except on the most abstract philosophical grounds that they involve regulating how women dress in certain circumstances. Asserting a deeper similarity papers over vast differences in the policies themselves, as well as the differences in civil society, culture, and law under which the disparate policies were enacted, are enforced, and might be overturned.
The hypocrisy presupposed by the question, then, does not exist.