I don't believe the word 'haste' applies so much as 'expansion'. JPII canonized more saints during his pontificate than any other pope. All of these individuals had to pass through the same rigorous examination. He expanded the number to include those from more diverse backgrounds. St. Gianna - for mothers with difficult pregnancies, for example and St. Nimatullah Al Hardini, a Maronite monk, embraced by those in an Eastern Catholic Tradition.
From what I understand, Benedict XVI plans to slow down the number of canonizations.
I do, however, believe there has been an almost assembly line naming of "Saints" in the past few years. To what purpose"
Further, I believe "miraculous healing" is too freely interpreted. If there is a record of thousands of instances of spontaneous healing (remission) of a particular condition how do you choose one as a "miracle"? Are they all "miraculous"?
I have been partially paralyzed for well over 20 years and have attended several "healing" services at various churches, Catholic and Protestant. I have not been healed but there are many cases on record of people being "healed" of the same condition. Were they all "miracles" regardless of where, when, or how the healing took place? I don't think so.
I may sound skeptical but I believe firmly that we should ascribe a "miracle" to something that has not yet happened as far as we know. Such a "miracle" would be an example of a missing limb growing back.