Connect with us

Business

Peavey Mart confirms all 90 stores will be closing

Published

11 minute read

From Retail Insider

 
Sources have confirmed to Retail Insider that Peavey Mart, a Canadian retail chain known for its agricultural supplies, hardware, and home improvement products, is closing all of its stores nationwide. Liquidation sales began on the weekend. The store closures include the flagship location in Red Deer, Alberta, where the company’s headquarters are also based. This marks a significant and surprising turn of events for a company with deep roots in Canadian retail, dating back to its establishment in Winnipeg in 1967.

(Update: Peavey Industries confirmed store closures on Monday evening in a press release)

A Legacy of Growth and Acquisitions

Peavey Mart has long been a staple for rural and small-town communities, catering to farmers, ranchers, and homeowners. Over the years, the company expanded from its Western Canada base into Ontario and other regions, particularly following its acquisition of TSC Stores in 2016. That move helped establish Peavey Mart as a household name in Ontario, diversifying its reach and bolstering its product offerings. It was also a huge expense.

In 2020, the company further broadened its scope by acquiring the Canadian master license for Ace Hardware from Lowe’s-owned RONA Inc., adding 107 Ace Hardware locations to its portfolio. This strategic acquisition was part of Peavey Industries’ efforts to compete in the hardware and home improvement sector against larger rivals like Home Depot and Canadian Tire.

However, Peavey’s relationship with Ace Hardware International came to an end in 2024, following the announcement that the partnership would cease on December 31, 2024. This decision marked a turning point for the company, forcing it to refocus on its Peavey Mart and MainStreet Hardware brands.

Financial Struggles and Early Signs of Trouble

Last week, Peavey Industries announced plans to shutter 22 underperforming Peavey Mart locations in Ontario and Nova Scotia by the end of April. At the time, the closures were presented as part of an organizational restructuring aimed at stabilizing the business and positioning it for future growth.

Doug Anderson, President and CEO of Peavey Industries, addressed the challenges in a previous statement:

“The Canadian retail environment has undergone significant disruptions in recent years, and Peavey has not been immune to these challenges. These closures are a challenging yet necessary step to stabilize and position our business for future growth.”

Despite these efforts, it now appears the company’s financial difficulties have proven insurmountable, leading to the closure of all 90+ stores across Canada.

Liquidation signs at Peavey Mart’s Red Deer store on Saturday, January 25. Photo: Joel Graham via Facebook

Financing and Restructuring Efforts Fall Short

In its bid to remain viable, Peavey Industries had secured a CAD $155 million financing package from Gordon Brothers. The package included a $105 million revolving credit facility, a $30 million term loan, and a $20 million consignment program. This financial injection was intended to facilitate restructuring efforts, support ongoing operations, and provide a lifeline to the struggling retailer.

Additionally, Peavey Industries collaborated with Gordon Brothers to ensure a smooth transition for affected employees and communities. However, these measures were ultimately insufficient to save the business.

Impact on Communities and Employees

The closure of Peavey Mart will leave a significant void in the Canadian retail landscape, particularly in rural and small-town markets where the chain has long been a trusted resource for agricultural and home improvement needs. The closures are also a major blow to the company’s workforce across the country.

While Peavey Industries initially expressed a commitment to supporting its employees during the transition, the abrupt announcement of a full shutdown leaves many workers and communities grappling with uncertainty.

Image: Peavey Mart
Image: Peavey Mart

A message from the Peace River Manager

In a heartfelt statement shared on Facebook, the manager of the Peace River, Alberta, Peavey Mart location expressed regret about the closures. The post sheds light on the situation and offers a glimpse into the company’s struggles over recent years. The manager wrote:

“Peace River Community,

It is with regret that I inform you of the upcoming closure of Peace River Peavey Mart, along with all other Peavey Mart locations across Canada. While many details are being kept confidential, I will keep you updated as we receive more information from the corporate team. At this time, I do not have a time frame; my best guess is 3 to 6 months.

Until an official statement is released by the company, I can only offer my personal perspective on the situation. Since 2016, Peavey Mart has expanded rapidly, acquiring over 70 stores in Eastern Canada, opening new stores, and acquiring several other businesses. However, growth was met with challenges, including a decline in business levels and rising interest rates. Unfortunately, many of the acquired stores did not prove profitable, and the company’s efforts to adjust did not have the desired results.

As a last resort, Peavey partnered with Gordon Brothers, an American investment firm, which I believe now holds a majority stake in the company and are making all decisions going forward. It appears the current plan may be to liquidate and close all locations, with potential rebranding, though which stores will remain open is still uncertain.

Please note that this is my personal opinion, and I am sharing it to help clarify the situation for our valued customers. I kindly ask that you direct any concerns toward our corporate offices, as these decisions are beyond the control of the staff here in the store.

We have worked diligently to serve you, and we appreciate your understanding during this time. It’s difficult to come to terms with the closure of so many profitable locations in Western Canada, with Peace River being one of the most notable. The Peace River location recently achieved top sales growth company-wide, consistently delivering a healthy profit despite Peavey’s constant inventory challenges.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all of our customers. It has been a pleasure serving the Peace River community, and I will miss it when our time here comes to an end. If you have any questions, please feel free to visit the store, and I will do my best to provide answers. At the current moment, the company has told us they are not ready to make a statement yet.”

Update: Press Release from Peavey Industries

Peavey Industries confirmed Monday evening that all Peavey Mart stores will be closing. The following is the press release that was forwarded by email to Canadian media sources:

Red Deer, Alberta – January 27, 2025 – Peavey Industries LP (“Peavey” or “the Company”), Canada’s largest farm and ranch retail chain, announced today that it has sought and obtained an Initial Order for creditor protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Court of King’s Bench Alberta.

Following the recently announced closures of 22 stores in Ontario and Nova Scotia, the Company will now begin store closing sales at all remaining locations across Canada. This includes 90 Peavey Mart stores and six MainStreet Hardware locations. The closures and liquidation efforts will commence immediately.

The decision to seek creditor protection and close all stores was made after thorough evaluation of available options, in consultation with legal and financial advisors. The Canadian retail industry is experiencing unprecedented challenges, including record-low consumer confidence, inflationary pressures, rising operating costs, and ongoing supply disruptions along with a difficult regulatory environment. These factors have created significant obstacles for businesses like Peavey.

“This was a profoundly difficult decision, but one that allows us to explore the best possible alternatives for the future of the Company,” said Doug Anderson, President and CEO of Peavey Industries LP. “For nearly six decades, our customers’ loyalty, employees’ dedication, and the resilience of the communities we serve have been the cornerstone of our business. We remain focused on working with our partners and stakeholders to preserve the Peavey brand and the value it represents.”

The Company’s immediate priority is to generate liquidity through the closure process while continuing to work with funders, partners, and stakeholders to explore potential opportunities to preserve the brand.

Peavey Industries LP is committed to providing regular updates as the situation develops.”

Craig Patterson

Craig Patterson

Located in Toronto, Craig is the Publisher & CEO of Retail Insider Media Ltd. He is also a retail analyst and consultant, Advisor at the University of Alberta School Centre for Cities and Communities in Edmonton, former lawyer and a public speaker. He has studied the Canadian retail landscape for over 25 years and he holds Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Laws Degrees.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

Carney needs to cancel gun ban and buyback

Published on

 Gage Haubrich

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Liberal Leader Mark Carney to stop the gun ban and buyback after he announced he would  continue with the scheme.

“Carney needs to scrap this plan and stop wasting taxpayer’s money on it,” said Gage Haubrich, CTF Prairie Director. “Planning to spend potentially billions of dollars on a program that is not going to make Canadians safer is a waste of money.

“Carney needs to be cancelling this wasteful plan, not doubling down on it.”

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is promising to get rid of Ottawa’s gun bans.

The government said the buyback would cost taxpayers $200 million in 2019. Only buying back the guns could cost up to $756 million, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Government documents show that the buyback is now likely to cost almost $2 billion.

The banned gun list includes more than 2,000 different types of firearms.

Every year since the gun ban was announced in 2020, violent gun crime in Canada has increased.

New Zealand conducted a similar, but more extensive, gun ban and buyback in 2019. New Zealand had 1,216 violent firearm offenses in 2023. That’s 349 more offences than the year before the buyback.

Experts also agree that the buyback won’t make Canadians any safer.

The National Police Federation, the union representing the RCMP, says Ottawa’s buyback “diverts extremely important personnel, resources, and funding away from addressing the more immediate and growing threat of criminal use of illegal firearms.”

“Buyback programs are largely ineffective at reducing gun violence, in large part because the people who participate in such programs are not likely to use those guns to commit violence,” said University of Toronto professor Jooyoung Lee

“Experts say that this gun ban and buyback won’t do anything to make Canadians safer,” Haubrich said. “Carney needs to listen to the experts and commit to cancelling this scheme before it costs taxpayers any more money.”

Continue Reading

Business

Timeline: Panama Canal Politics, Policy, and Tensions

Published on

Racket News - YouTube  By Greg Collard and James Rushmore

Hegseth’s visit to Panama includes strongly-worded speeches directed at China

While the trade war with China plays out, another war of political rhetoric is heating up again over the Panama Canal.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was in Panama this week, and pointed out America’s military presence and joint training exercises with Panamanians. Though he said the U.S. doesn’t seek war and that “war with China is certainly not inevitable,” he had a strong military message for the CCP:

Racket News is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Our relationship is growing in part to meet communist China’s rising challenge. China-based companies continue to control critical infrastructure in the canal area that gives China the potential to conduct surveillance activities across Panama. This makes Panama and the United States less secure, less prosperous, and less sovereign.

He said “China will not weaponize this canal,” and it will stay that way “through the deterrent power of the strongest, most effective, and most lethal fighting force in the world.”

Hegseth followed up Wednesday with a similar message to the Central American Security Conference.

The era of capitulating to coercion by the communist Chinese is over. They’re growing an adversarial control of strategic land and critical infrastructure in this hemisphere cannot and will not stand. To accomplish this, our countries cannot face these shared threats alone. We have to face them together. America will confront, will deter, and if necessary defeat these threats alongside all of you, our close and valued partners. Our mission is simple: achieve peace through strength through an America first approach. We’re doing this by restoring the warrior ethos, rebuilding our military and reestablishing deterrence.

Obviously, that didn’t go over well with China. Its embassy in Panama accuses the U.S. of hypocrisy as it “repeats ad nauseam the ‘Chinese interference and influence.’” It noted the U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 and asked: “Who represents the real threat to the Channel? People will make their own judgment.”

(In making that judgment, a reminder that the U.S. still controlled the Panama Canal in 1989, and Panama was run by dictator Manuel Noriega who had been indicted in the U.S. on drug crimes. He was also a former CIA informant, and American officials knew about his crimes — which included helping Pablo Escobar — for years before doing anything about it).

China’s influence over the Canal has grown since 2017, when Panama severed ties with Taiwan and established diplomatic relations with China. A Chinese company controls the largest port on the Atlantic side of the Canal, and a Hong Kong company, CK Hutchinson, controls ports on both ends of the Canal. Last month, BlackRock, an American investment firm, reached a deal to buy CK Hutchinson’s ports, but that deal could be in jeopardy of falling through. Chinese firms are also building a bridge across the Canal.

President Trump has said the U.S. should have never given up the canal to Panama, which occurred on Dec. 31, 1999, as agreed to in treaties that President Carter signed in 1977 and won Senate approval the following year.

While critics place a lot of blame on Carter, Presidents Nixon and Ford started the negotiations. There was bipartisan support to reach a deal (there was even a tentative deal in place in 1967, but a coup in Panama ended those negotiations) because there were tensions and sometimes violence between locals and Americans. The audio below is from a 1976 NBC story that describes life inside the barbed wire fence that surrounded the Canal Zone: “Its 40,000 American residents, both military and civilian, enjoy a suburban lifestyle.” Panamanians on the other side of the fence were resentful.

Listen now · 6:22

Ronald Reagan changed the political debate over the Canal during his primary challenge to Ford in 1976. Opposition to any deal with Panama became the focus of his campaign. Reagan says in the ad below: “We bought it, we paid for it, and General Torrijos (Panama’s dictator) should be told we’re going to keep it.”

The message was effective. Reagan won 24 states, and Ford didn’t secure the GOP nomination until the Republican National Convention.

Today’s debate over the Panama Canal

The Panama Canal was not a campaign issue in 2024. Trump first complained about passage rates charged to the Navy and U.S. shipping companies in two December 21 social media posts. Trump wrote that if the situation does not improve, “we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, and without question. To the Officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly!”

He repeated those criticisms and threats in a speech the following day:

It was not given for the benefit of others by a token of cooperation, but it was given to Panama and to the people of Panama, but it has provisions. You gotta treat us fairly, and they haven’t treated us fairly. If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full, quickly and without question.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called that “preposterous.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also dismissed the idea of regaining control of the Panama Canal.

But Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz said Trump has a point. He dismissed the idea of taking the Canal by force, but said “the United States reasserting its history in the Panama Canal is actually a good, important, strategic issue.”

At a hearing in January, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz voiced concern about the bridge that Chinese firms are building across the Canal.

The partially-completed bridge gives China the ability to block the Canal without warning, and the ports give China ready observation posts to time that action. This situation poses acute risks to U.S. national security.

A witness at that hearing, George Mason international law professor Eugene Kontorovich, testified that the presence of a Chinese company essentially means the Chinese military has a presence in the Canal.

In a communist regime, distinctions between private and government-owned firms are not as absolute or clear-cut as in a Western liberal society. This is particularly the case for the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which has an official doctrine known as “Military-Civilian Fusion,” a top-level strategy of the CCP Central Committee since 2019.

Here’s a timeline of key events in the history of the Panama Canal leading up to this week’s speeches from Hegseth.

January 22, 1903

The U.S. and Colombia, which controlled what is now Panama, agree to a treaty that gives the U.S. rights to the land to build the Canal in return for $10 million and $250,000 annually. However, Colombia’s congress rejects the deal.

November 3, 1903

With the backing of the U.S., Panama declares its independence from Colombia.

November 18, 1903

The U.S. and Panama sign the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, which establishes the Panama Canal Zone and “grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone.” The treaty has the same financial terms that Colombia’s Congress rejected. It’s ratified by the Senate and approved by President Theodore Roosevelt in February 1904.


August 15, 1914

The Panama Canal opens to shipping.

January 9, 1964

Panamanian rioters invade the Canal Zone and attempt to substitute the U.S. flag with a Panamanian one. The riots last three days, killing 22 Panamanians and four U.S. troops.

September 7, 1977

President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos sign the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. Panama will take control of the Canal on Dec. 31, 1999. President Carter says:

This agreement thus forms a new partnership to ensure that this vital waterway, so important to all of us, will continue to be well-operated, safe, and open to shipping by all nations now and in the future. Under these accords, Panama will play an increasingly important role in the operation and defense of the Canal during the next 23 years, and after that, the United States will still be able to counter any threat to the Canal’s neutrality and openness for use.

Panama gains control of the Canal. Army Secretary Louis Caldera, the head of the U.S. delegation at the handover ceremony, says:

The United States could not aspire to be a good neighbor to Latin America and continue occupying and dividing the territory of a country considered a friend.

December 21, 2024

On Truth Social, President-elect Trump slams Panama for charging the United States “exorbitant prices and rates of passage” to use the Canal. He claims that China is influencing the canal’s management, before adding, “This complete ‘rip-off’ of our Country will immediately stop.”

In a follow-up post, Trump adds:

December 22, 2024

While delivering a speech in Phoenix, Trump asks, “Has anyone ever heard of the Panama Canal? Because we’re being ripped off at the Panama Canal like we’re being ripped off everywhere else.”

When an audience member suggests taking back the Canal, Trump responds, “That’s a good idea.”

Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino responds to Trump in a video he posts on X:

Mulino also issues a written statement, citing the Torrijos-Carter Treaties: “Every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjacent area belong to PANAMA, and will continue to be. The sovereignty and independence of our country are not negotiable.”

He adds that passage rates are determined by “market conditions, international competition, operating costs and the maintenance and modernization needs of the interoceanic waterway,” and insists upon the Canal’s “permanent neutrality” and “open and safe operation for all nations.” He also rejects the notion that China wields any special influence over the Canal: “The Canal has no direct or indirect control from China, nor the European Union, nor the United States or any other power.”

Trump’s response:

Trump also shares an AI-generated image with the following caption:

December 23, 2024

Panamanian protesters gather outside the U.S. embassy to protest Trump.

Among the chants: “Get out invading gringo” and “Trump, animal, leave the Canal alone.”

They burn an American flag and set fire to an image of Trump.

“Donald Trump and his imperial delusion cannot claim even a single centimeter of land in Panama,” says one protester.

December 25, 2024

Trump posts the following Christmas message:

Minutes later, he announces that Miami-Dade County Commissioner Kevin Marino Cabrera will serve as the next U.S. ambassador to Panama, “a Country that is ripping us off on the Panama Canal, far beyond their wildest dreams.”

December 26, 2024

Panamian President Murino holds a press conference to send a message to Trump that the Canal is not for sale.

The Canal is Panamanian and belongs to Panamanians. There’s no possibility of opening any kind of conversation around this reality, which has cost the country blood, sweat and tears.

He also denies Trump’s claim that the Chinese military has any presence in the Canal, saying, “There are no Chinese soldiers in the Canal, for the love of God.”

January 7, 2025

During a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump refuses to rule out using military force to acquire the Panama Canal. He claims that it was “built for our military” and “is vital to our country.” He once again argues that the Canal is “being operated by China.”

January 9, 2025

Republican Congressman Dusty Johnson of South Dakota introduces the Panama Canal Repurchase Act of 2025, which authorizes the President and the Secretary of State to “initiate and conduct negotiations with appropriate counterparts of the Government of the Republic of Panama to reacquire the Panama Canal.”

Panama Canal Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez tells the Associated Press that the Canal cannot charge lower rates to U.S. ships. He speaks of his desire to “maintain the established rules,” insists that the Canal is a neutral economic zone, and says that the Chinese companies operating in its ports have no special influence over how the Canal is run.

January 20, 2025

During his inauguration address, President Trump describes how “American ships [that use the Panama Canal] are being severely overcharged and not treated fairly in any way, shape, or form.” He repeats his assertion that China controls the Canal and closes with the following: “We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.”

Trump’s comments prompt another statement from Mulino in which he says, “The Canal was not a concession from anyone.”

Panama also sends the statement to the U.N. Security Council.

February 2, 2025

Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrives in Panama City to meet with Mulino.

Mulino attempts to assuage Rubio’s concerns about Chinese influence by announcing that Panama would allow its membership in China’s Belt and Road Initiative to expire. He also vows to allow more U.S. investments in Panama.

Later that day, Trump reiterates his interest in obtaining the Canal. He tells reporters that “something very powerful is going to happen” if Panama does not cede control over the waterway.

Secretary of State Rubio is in Panama right now, and we’re talking about the Panama Canal. What they’ve done is terrible. They violated the agreement. They’re not allowed to violate the agreement.

China is running the Panama Canal. That was not given to China; that was given to Panama, foolishly. But they violated the agreement, and we’re going to take it back, or something very powerful is going to happen.

March 4, 2025

A consortium led by BlackRock announces that it will purchase CK Hutchison’s holdings in the Panama Ports Company, which owns and operates two ports on each side of the canal. CK Hutchison is owned by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, and it reportedly felt “political pressure to exit the ports business.” The deal is worth over $19 billion.

Trump references the deal during his address to the joint session of Congress that evening (1:19:50 of the video below).

[The Panama Canal] was given away by the Carter administration for one dollar, but that agreement has been violated very severely. We didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.

March 5, 2025

In an X post, Mulino denies Trump’s implication that the BlackRock deal lays the groundwork for a U.S. takeover of the Canal. He accuses Trump of lying.

March 13, 2025

NBC News reports that the Trump administration plans to bolster the U.S. military presence in Panama. Military officials tell NBC that, while the goal is to eventually reclaim control over the Canal, a U.S. invasion remains unlikely.

March 20, 2025

The Chinese government threatens to block CK Hutchison from selling its controlling interest in the two Panama Canal ports to BlackRock.

April 7, 2025

A Panamanian government investigation finds that CK Hutchison owes the country’s government over $300 million in fees because it did not properly renew its contract to operate its two ports along the Canal. This development has the potential to delay or even jeopardize the company’s deal with BlackRock.

Later that night, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth arrives in Panama. He will speak at the reopening of an American port and address the Central American Security Conference. He is the first secretary of defense to visit Panama in two decades.

April 8, 2025

Hegseth meets with Mulino and Panama Canal Authority Administrator Ricaurte Vazquez.

They release a joint statement that says they agree to “strengthen bilateral Canal security cooperation,” guarantee “the expedited transit of warships and auxiliary vessels of the Republic of Panama and the United States, improve bilateral cyber cooperation,” and allocate Army Corps of Engineers resources towards ensuring the Canal’s sustainability. They also announce that they will move toward adopting a new mechanism for U.S. payment of Canal tolls and charges. The Defense Secretary praises Mulino for withdrawing Panama from the Belt and Road Initiative.

Panama’s version of their joint statement includes an additional detail: It says that Hegseth “recognized Panama’s leadership and inalienable sovereignty over the Panama Canal and its adjacent areas.”

 

Racket News is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Trending

X