You act like Canada and Québec never had minority leading parties.
It's more and more common to have a minority rule than a majority one which forces the governing party to work with others
Pluripartism is extremely important
The minority governments we've seen have been a blip on the radar in comparison, usually because majoritarian voting systems encourage opposition to force an election at the closest sign of government weakness, which almost always backfires and the ruling party is delivered more seats until they reach a majority. See: the most recent Conservative government federally. Lot of good all that soft-power influence had, when all it did is make Conservatives look more palatable to the population while they continued to behave like they held a majority regardless, with any compromise they might have engaged in immediately betrayed the moment they were given a majority.
Trying to write that is as some sort of positive influence or a plus for multiple parties in a voting system designed for a 2-party democracy is eyebrow-raising, to say the least. It's not true compromise and you have to stop pretending it is. Any positive effects of it or party policy changes are immediately washed away when a majority is inevitably achieved, so it becomes nothing but temporary political theatre at best. The only way that any of what you suggest could be a positive is if a majority could never be achieved, but it inevitably occurs.
But this is becoming a very off-topic discussion, so I'll try to wrap this up in a way that's helpful to the discussion topic by making the commentary less specific and more general.
I agree with you that multiple parties are important and vital, giving political opportunity to independents is even more important to achieving the best possible representation for a constituency.
But FPTP immediately and irrevocably undermines that effort at every single turn, so simply having multiple parties in a majoritarian electoral system is essentially useless at worst or a faint shadow compared to an actual functional multi-party democracy at best, because the introduction of multiple parties forces a voting system designed to be majoritarian to behave as a plurality voting system, which it was never designed to be and brings about massive failure points.
Even switching to a true plurality voting system would resolve much of the problem, though I wouldn't advocate for that personally in my country. It would be a great stepping stone for the US, however, and it had an immediate positive effect on politics in the few municipalities and states where it was introduced and would open up 3rd-party opportunities, so that would need to be in place before this discussion could be had.
So, Americans, advocate for electoral reform in your state and then a discussion could be had about a 3rd party.
