Your comment and the sibling comment touch on more or less the same issue - "what does 'broken' mean?". We all agree there are problems, but does that justify

Your comment and the sibling comment touch on more or less the same issue - "what does 'broken' mean?". We all agree there are problems, but does that justify saying "Canada is broken"? You start by saying that the US shares an issue with Canada. So is the US also broken? The sibling comment mentions other social and financial problems. Can we categorically say that a specific country is "broken" if it faces those issues? From my perspective, calling a country "broken" is a very categorical statement, bringing to mind failed states, coups etc. I'm sure (or rather, hopeful) that we can all agree this isn't the case of Canada. When people say "broken" in this context, it is much more in the sense of "my car has a broken fuel line" than a commentary on how Canada is a Libya-style failed nation-state. So in essence, "Canada is broken" is really "things are less good than they could or should be". That is the essence of my initial post - there are problems, yes; but the slogan is mostly inaccurate, ergo propaganda. The "Canada is broken" people would also benefit from broader perspectives. I've lived most of my life in a developing country in the global south, so living here and seeing your definition of "broken" is a bit bewildering. I haven't lived here long enough to have seen how wonderful things were in the past decades, though, so who knows.