Half the world does not know how the other half

‘lives.

oF nce nee

lL. the process of doing research for the report
_on shoplifting in this issue (page 28), a strange but
disturbing fact came to the writer's attention. It
seems the incidence of first-time shoplifting offenses,
most ‘of. them. involving middle-aged men, has
increased substantially since the Terrace landfill
- came under regulation last year.

To establish a direct and unshakeable correlation
between these two phenomena would probably
- require an extensive study, the money for which
would be better spent. in other ways, but it doesn’t
_ take a degree in sociology for the idle observer to
 eonclude that there are some people living in poverty
in this area who have been done out of a supplemen-

tary source of income by being denied access to the |

dump. ,

The idea that people can be driven to theft by
poverty cannot account for any but a small number
of shoplifting incidents, but that small number shows
there are flaws in the drafting of our social contract.
A family of four with two parents, one of whom is
employable, would receive $542 to live on, over and
above shelter costs, per month under GAIN (welfare).
A family of the same composition with one working
parent on the current minimum wage, $5.50 per
hour, would have a gross monthly income of $880.
The most recent rental market analysis for Terrace

,

16 ‘Terrace Review — March 20, 1992

- Rabelais

a
wee

‘issued by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corpor-

ation shows the average rent for a three-bedroom
apartment at $449 a month. After the payroll deduc-
tions made by governments, which supposedly go
toward running a country in which people don’t have
to steal to eat, the family is left with about $400 in
aubsistence money, more than $100 below the wel-
farerate. ©  |© .. _
A family of four could survive on that if they

didn’t want much, and if nothing ever went wrong.

A higher minimum wage, higher GAIN rates or
even re-opening the dump to salvage is not the ticket
to security for the working poor or the chronically
disadvantaged. ©

Salvaging at the landfill has never been a sane:
tioned activity, but it has also never been an activity

for which people have been prosecuted. Both the poor
and those with relatively comfortable income levels
could be seen any day of the week wandering about
looking for scrap metal; useable wood, malfunction-
ing but repairable appliances, and other items
someone had deemed to be too much bother to deal
with in any way other than throwing them out. For
the working poor and those on social assistance,

salvage provided a means of attaining a few small |

luxuries and sometimes the necessities of life. Others
have taken those items and casually donated them to
acquaintances or friends of friends who are in need.

It is difficult to imagine anyone declaring an
income or benefit from such activities, and it is the
unregulated nature of salvage in general that gives
it utility; no taxes are levied, no deductions made
from GAIN, UIC benefits or pensions. It is outside

the mainstream economy, and the fact that it is

FE ee eae on a i ne eit Rasa SSE IEE Naeger

shi hal oat