An environmental advocacy group is suing the federal government over provisions in legislation that it says restrict public participation in regulatory hearings over proposed projects, such as oil pipelines.

ForestEthics Advocacy and activist Donna Sinclair filed the lawsuit in Toronto on Tuesday, calling on the Federal Court to strike down provisions in the National Energy Board Act that “unreasonably restrict public comment on project proposals.”

The new rules were contained in last year’s omnibus budget bill, and the federal government argued at the time that they were designed to streamline the approval process.

But ForestEthics argues that under the guidelines, “many Canadians are blocked from participation.”

“Through legislative changes snuck into last year’s Omnibus Budget Bill C-38, the Conservative government has undermined the democratic rights of all Canadians to speak to the issues that impact them,” lawyer Clayton Ruby, who is representing the group, said in a statement.

“Right now, they cannot question the development of the tar sands itself! We're challenging the legislation and the NEB’s new rules because they violate fundamental free speech guarantees enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

The group specifically references upcoming hearings into Enbridge Line 9B. The company is seeking approval from the NEB to essentially re-reverse it from an east-west pipeline to a west-east pipeline. The nearly 700 kilometre-long pipeline was built in the 1970s and originally transported oil west to east, along the northern shoreline of Lake Ontario from southwestern Ontario to Montreal.

The group objects to the new, nine-page application would-be participants must fill out for permission to speak at NEB hearings, as well as to the fact the agency “reserves for itself the right to exclude anyone except for those that it considers to be ‘directly affected’ by the proposed project.”

Sinclair’s own application to submit a “letter of comment” at the 9B hearings was denied. The federal government says that only 8 of 178 applicants were denied outright because they had incorrectly filled out the application, did not demonstrate that they have relevant expertise or had no direct interest in the project.

Another 11 applicants, including the Council of Canadians, the Sierra Club of Canada and Environmental Justice Toronto, were told that while they could not appear at the hearings, they were welcome to submit a letter.

National Resources Minister Joe Oliver said in a statement that the NEB “must hear from those who are directly affected and may choose to hear from those with information or expertise relevant to the scope of the hearing.

“In fact, over 95 per cent of applicants have been given standing to intervene in the Enbridge Line 9 review process. Focusing submissions ensures the review is informed by the facts material to the scope of the hearing and protects it from being used as a tool to delay decisions.”

The group says it is also challenging new NEB rules that “prevent any discussion of the wisdom of tar sands development” at the L9 hearings.

In a statement, the NEB said it cannot comment on the specifics of the lawsuit. However, the agency noted that despite ForestEthics’ concerns, “the NEB does not…approve coal and uranium mining and oil sands development in Canada.”

With files from Mercedes Stephenson