Okay. I'll make my ruling, and it's going to be twofold.
First I'd read from chapter 3, O'Brien and Bosc, page 99, as follows:
As Speaker Milliken noted in 2003: Speakers discourage members of Parliament from using names in speeches if they are speaking ill of some other person because, with parliamentary privilege applying to what they say, anything that is damaging to the reputation or to the individual, … is then liable to be published with the cover of parliamentary privilege and the person is unable to bring any action in respect of those claims.
We don't want to name individuals, so if Mr. Warawa was naming a particular member, then it would be out of order.
However, it says on page 93, under “Importance of Freedom of Speech”, the following:
Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they might make. This freedom is essential for the effective working of the House. Under it, Members are able to make statements or allegations about outside bodies or persons, which they may hesitate to make without the protection of privilege. Though this is often criticized, the freedom to make allegations which the Member genuinely believes at the time to be true, or at least worthy of investigation, is fundamental. The House of Commons could not work effectively unless its Members are able to speak and criticize without having to account to any outside body. There would be no freedom of speech if everything had to be proven true before it were uttered. In a ruling on a question of privilege in 1984, Speaker Bosley affirmed that “the privilege of a Member of Parliament when speaking in the House or in a committee is absolute, and that it would be very difficult to find that any statement made under the cloak of parliamentary privilege constituted a violation of that privilege.”
So based on that ruling, I'm going to allow Mr. Warawa to continue, as long as he is respectful in his comments and not naming individual members and demeaning an individual member's reputation. But he does have the freedom and the right to speak, and I believe the word “coalition” is in order.