To answer the OP's question, my answer is "I believe not".
Technically, this is because the Nile is, well, a river, which the Bridge Engineers are designed to, well, bridge. But the Suez Canal is implemented as
straits hexes, probably to allow the Red Sea cruiser to show off its ability to enter the canal; which it would not be able to do if the Suez consisted of river hexes.
Straits hexes act as ocean and as such can't be bridged, despite the "narrow" appearance. (It would appear that modern bridge construction technologies weren't yet available...)
In other words, the designer prioritized ship movement in the canal over the ability to bridge it (either using regular bridges or Bridge Engineers).
Personally, while I can see why this design was chosen as a "fun detail", I'm not sure I agree with that decision. I don't believe a warship would willingly enter the canal during direct combat - it would become a sitting duck (as the cruiser of the scenario so amply demonstrates
), the canal's ability to transfer ships between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea is an issue of strategy, supply and logistics, and not one of tactics. So the ability to model ship movement in the canal is not an ability I would prioritize.
On the other hand, the canal is straight and narrow, and it would appear much easier for engineers to bridge it than many rivers (including the mighty Nile!), not to speak about how there must have been road bridges already existing.
So in conclusion, I would have designed the Suez Canal as "thin blue line" (normal river), thinking the ability to bridge it much more important for verisimilitude than the ability for the Royal Navy to sail through it during combat operations.