What is the test for indeterminate sentence in long term offender cases?

The prevailing sentencing objective in these unique sentencing options is that of public protection. The court quoted Dickson J. as he then was in Hatchwell v. The Queen 1974 CanLII 203 (SCC), [1976] 1 S.C.R.39 for the expression of this purpose “to protect the public when the past conduct of the criminal demonstrates a propensity for crimes of violence against the person, and there is a real and present danger to life or limb.” (at p.43). The court states “The principles of sentencing thus dictates that a judge ought to impose an indeterminate sentence only in those instances in which there does not exist less restrictive means by which to protect the public adequately from the threat of harm, ie: where a definite sentence or long term offender designation are insufficient. The essential question to be determined then is whether the sentencing sanctions available pursuant to the long term offender provisions are sufficient to reduce this threat to an acceptable level, despite the fact that the statutory criteria of s.753(1) are met.” (at para.29)