Canadians go to the polls on Monday to elect a new government and prime minister. Until shortly before elections were called, the three main political parties were level pegging in polls at around 30 percent each: the ruling Conservative Party led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Liberal Party led by Justin Trudeau (son of the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau), and the Tom Mulcair-led New Democratic Party (NDP). Initially the NDP moved ahead and the Liberals fell behind. Recently Trudeau has been moving up at the expense of his fellow-left of center NDP, with Harper in second place. In the event of a minority government, it is hard to see how Harper could garner support from either Trudeau or Mulcair.

In my analysis of the last federal election (The Japan Times, May 9, 2011), noting the “centralization of power in the hands of the prime minster and political staffers, with the resulting diminution of the role and status of the Cabinet, parliaments and parliamentarians,” I expressed concern at “the extent to which constitutional conventions, parliamentary etiquette and civil institutions of good governance have been chipped away in Canada.”

Several newspapers have endorsed the Trudeau-led Liberals for believing in dialogue, compromise and consensus instead of division and prejudice. As Montreal’s Le Presse put it, “After 10 years of destructive government that lives on meanness and narrow-mindedness, Canada needs a government based on intelligence, dialogue and optimism.”

The main Conservative attack ad has framed the election as a choice between the steady hands of Harper on the tiller against the inexperienced — “Is he ready?” — Trudeau. In the event, the poise, self-confidence and maturity with which Trudeau has conducted himself during the campaign has turned the ad against the Conservatives themselves.

Trudeau argues no election is worth winning if it means pitting Canadians against one another. Describing Canada as “a country of good neighbors and we’re proud of that,” he criticized Harper for choosing a strategy that puts “at risk something that is extraordinarily important to this country.” In his view, diversity is “at the heart of the success of this extraordinary city (Toronto) and this country.” Harper “has underestimated how much Canadians care about their country, about their democracy, about their values.” By contrast, “I have gambled an awful lot on Canadians being better than Mr. Harper thinks they are.”

I concluded my 2011 analysis with the warning that Harper could “fall victim to hubris and alienate large swaths of Canadians by pushing through an agenda at odds with mainstream values.” Which he duly did. In a recent analysis in The Atlantic, communications consultant Parker Donham explained why Harper inspires “intense animosity among voters who believe he has diminished national attributes they cherish and the rest of the world admires.” In three complementary articles in the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and Literary Review of Canada, Canada’s former U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker wrote a devastating critique of the damage wrought by Harper’s government to Canadian interests, values and standing in world affairs.

Dismissing Harper’s foreign policy as stagecraft, not statecraft, Heinbecker documented the damaged bilateral relations with the United States, the lack of coherent and sustained attention to ties with China, the transactional approach to dealings with Asia, the alienation of Mexico with ill-conceived visa restrictions that hurt Canada’s tourism industry, and the abandonment of even-handedness on Middle East issues with a total tilt to Israel right or wrong. Harper failed to invest in personal diplomacy with key foreign leaders and hyped the military, downgraded diplomacy, marginalized the foreign service and sidelined development cooperation as tools of foreign policy, with foreign aid falling to below the OECD average for the first time since 1969. The courtship of diaspora communities in Canada in search of votes was accompanied by a disdain for multilateral institutions, which reciprocated the scorn.

Canada recently signed a deal worth 14 billion Canadian dollars with Saudi Arabia for the export of light armored vehicles — the largest arms export deal in Canadian history. Given the recipient country’s appalling human rights record, this created a predictable furor in Canada and became an issue in the election campaign. Under increasing fire, Harper defended the deal thus: “this contract is not an arms contract. It’s actually for military transport vehicles.” To say this characterization does not pass anyone’s laugh test would fail to do justice to the enormity of the credibility gap.

Trudeau and Mulcair promise to return Canada to its traditional role as an active middle power in multilateral institutions. Canada has not yet signed the U.N. arms trade treaty that came into force last Dec. 24. The government expressed concerns about how it would affect gun owners in Canada, even though the U.S. — with the world’s most influential gun lobby — has signed. Trudeau has promised to sign the treaty to mark the start of Canada re-engaging with the world. He has sharply criticized the failure to win election to the U.N. Security Council against tiny Portugal in 2010: Canada’s first ever defeat in such an election, having served on the council approximately once a decade.

Foreign policy issues have typically been afterthoughts in Canada’s federal election campaigns, as indeed in Australia’s. Harper became prime minister with no experience and little interest in foreign affairs. And yet prime ministers of Western middle powers typically find themselves engaged with key foreign as much as domestic policy issues. But because of the paucity of pre-election coverage and analyses of their foreign policies, citizens have little basis to make informed decisions on candidates.

For the first time, on Sept. 28 Canadians could watch and assess the leaders of the three main federal political parties articulate and defend their foreign policy visions for the country in a nationally televised and widely watched debate. The three leaders argued over topics ranging from the war against terror and Middle East wars, to citizenship rights and obligations, Canada-U.S. ties, the challenges and opportunities of international trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Canada’s diminished voice, presence and role in multilateral institutions, Israel policy, commitment to human rights, and refugee policy.

True to Canadian identity, the language of the expertly moderated debate switched back and forth between English and French, with all three leaders comfortable in responding to the question in the language in which it was asked. Always substantial, sometimes passionate, never uncivil and disrespectful, the debate is worthy of setting the benchmark for similar debates in all democracies. Australia should take note.

Canadians will have a far clearer appreciation of the contrasting party positions and the willingness and ability of the three leaders to project, promote and defend Canada’s interests and values on the world stage. In turn, the choice Canadians make will tell the rest of the world about their present values and future visions for Canada in this deeply interconnected world.

Australian National University professor Ramesh Thakur is a Canadian citizen.