Is WE Charity really as bad as the press makes out?

WE Charity is in deep water, there's no doubt about that. You can't fail to have heard that an investigation is still ongoing into the international development and youth empowerment charity (and its commmercial arm, ME to WE Social Enterprises, which turns about half of its profits over to the charity) over its part in a controversial, now cancelled, $912 million student volunteer program called tge Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) for the federal governmentm
WE itself stood to make $43.5 million from its administration of the project against which it could set its costs - this is NOT the government handing over nearly a billion dollars to WE Charity as some of its detractors try to disingenuously suggest. Under the CSSG program, as many as 100,000 Canadian students stood to make up to $5,000 for a summer of volunteer work, in a pandemic-hit summer where other casual work has all but dried up.
WE already has a bad rep in some circles. There is a perception that it is perhaps not the most efficient charity in terms of bang for your buck, and yet it earns an overall A- grade (A+ for fundraising efficiency and charity efficiency, although only B+ for "social results transparency") in Macleans Top Rated Charities guide, and it does meet the BBB Wise Giving Alliance's 20 Standards for Charity Accountability, which is more than some other charities do. Its corporate culture is perhaps a bit iffy, but so is that of so many corporations and even charities (even Amnesty International has been chastised for its toxic workplace environment).
Yes, like many other charities, WE pays celebrities to give motivational speeches, such as at their glitzy, upbeat WE Days for kids, which are a strange cross between charitable events and rock concerts, and there is a certain sleazy cult-like atmosphere around the Kielberger brothers, who founded the charity back in 1995 (when it was originally known as Free the Children).
I have read article after article listing, with an unspoken (but nevertheless clear) disparaging tone, all the big name speakers WE has persuaded, over the years, to work on their behalf, some paid and some unpaid, and all the rich major global corporations it has accumulated as sponsors and donors. From the barely-disguised disapproving tone of these articles (here is just one such article, and don't try and tellnme there is no sub-text to it), it is clear that the authors assume that there is some underhand skullduggery at work here and, rather than celebrating a successful charitable model, the implication given is that these are just rich socialites tapping their rich socialite buddies - although what would be so wrong with that if the end product is nore money for kids who need it? - that such a successful model could not be possible without some illicit nefariousness and perfidy.
But that is just its own particular MO. As Craig Kielberger told the parliamentary committee hearing last week,"We don't do telemarketing. We don't do street canvassing. We don't do mass mailing. We don't do fundraising of that kind of nature. But by bringing in these types of educational speakers to events, it allows us to bring partners and sponsors to the table."
All in all, WE has a certain in-your-face style, but it fills a certain niche in the Canadian charity eco-system. And, whether you like their style or not, WE certainly engages youth like no other charity, and they do do a lot of good for kids in need.