It would be very difficult because of perception. You arguing a point might be perceived by the person across as offensive, as unacceptable. From your point of view, it's totally fine, and you have 307 people, except the Speaker, who have their own opinion about it. How do we reconcile all of this? Freedom of speech, of course, is one of the most fundamental principles of privilege and it's the reason Parliament can function.
Limiting it in any way is certainly potentially dangerous, so any limit to free speech has to be done with a consciousness about the consequences. There are still possibilities for how you could define where the line is and how far you can go in what you say or how it's perceived. Then again, it's a question of definition for this committee to consider. But it's possible.