Rather than using the word "work", which is very general and which would allow anything built up until now, don't you think that it would have been more appropriate to replace the exemption pertaining to the word "bridge" by more specific works having a more obvious importance? Whether they be bridges, dams or weirs.
You mentioned that you discovered, while doing a review on navigation obstructions in 2004, that the vast majority of those were built by the Government of Canada. It is rather surprising to realize that the Government failed to comply with the act they are now reviewing. However, you mentioned this:
If you believe there is a need to have a least a cursory review of works built without an approval, amending Section 6(4)[...]
Don't you think that we could ask the Department to be stricter in the reviews they do? As long as we add precisions to the act, why don't we make mandatory a review of the works that did not get previous approval from our own Government?