Yes -- the problem with negotiating the trade deal in public is the people you intend to screw over have time to use the democratic process to stop it before you can put it into law.
If you try to give up one thing (e.g. free trade) in exchange for another (anti-counterfeiting provisions) and you get jumped on as soon as you suggest the first you never get a chance to broach the second.
Maybe the solution is to have a mandatory waiting period after the full text is released. 90 days before any votes can take place, something like that. Gives people time to go through and actually evaluate the proposal as a whole.
And the ability to rubber stamp a 6,000 page monolithic treaty which has already been agreed to is a complete joke. It's about as democratic as a parent asking a child, "would you like to go to boarding school or boot camp?" The democracy happened during the negotiations and amendments -- at that point the needs of each constituent were considered, included or excluded, compromised. Unfortunately the citizens of these countries or their elected representatives or anyone willing to represent their interests weren't invited to that party.
The negotiation would be harder, sure if it were public but that's because making an agreement that is fair is a lot harder than asking corporate lobbyists to narrate a wishlist and typing it up. All they had to do was reconcile the many, many different wishlists (still very hard), not put forth an agreement that actual citizens would approve of (much harder but what they should actually be doing).