There are two parts to the motion, hence the semicolon. It is already there in the first motion, and virtually the same terms are used. Indeed, I will read it and I quote: "...and ensure stable funding for organizations affected by this funding in order to support the vitality of francophone communities outside Quebec...". The whole of the second part, after the semicolon, concerns the same thing. The amendment is only a few lines, like the previous motion that was adopted with an amendment of a few lines. The basic meaning is not change. I cannot see why it should be withdrawn.
On December 12th, 2006. See this statement in context.