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

Business

The Digital Services Tax Q&A: “It was going to be complicated and messy”

Published on

A tax expert on the departed Digital Services Tax, and the fiscal and policy holes it leaves behind

It’s fun, and fair, arguing whether Mark Carney “caved” in suspending the application of Canada’s Digital Services Tax to revive broader negotiations with the Trump administration. But I figure there are other dimensions to this issue besides tactics. So I got in touch with Allison Christians, a tax law professor at McGill University and the founding director of the Canadian Centre for Tax Policy.

In our talk, Christians discusses the policy landscape that led to the introduction of the DST; the pressure that contributed to its demise; and the ways other countries are addressing a central contradiction of the modern policy landscape: without some kind of digital tax, countries risk having to impose costs on their own digital industry that the overwhelmingly US-based multinationals can avoid.

I spoke to Christians on Friday. Her remarks are edited for length and clarity.


 

Paul Wells: I noticed in your social media that you express inordinate fondness for tax law.

Allison Christians: You will not find a more passionate adherent to the tax cult than me. Yes, I do. I love tax law. Of course I do. How could you not? How could you not love tax law?

PW: What’s to love about tax law?

Christians: Well, tax law is how we create our country. That’s how we build our society. That’s how we create the communities that we want to live in and the lifestyle that we want to share with our neighbours. That’s how: with tax law.

PW: I guess the goal [of tax policy] is to generate the largest amount of revenue with the smallest amount of grief? And to send social signals while you’re at it. Is that right?

Christians: I don’t think so. Tax is not about raising maximum revenue. Tax is about deciding what society you’re trying to build and what portions of that society need to be made public, and what can be left to private interests which then need to profit. So we have decided in Canada, as a country, that basic minimum healthcare cannot be a for-profit enterprise. It has to be a public enterprise in order to make sure that it works for everybody to a certain basic level. So tax is about making those decisions: are we going to privatize everything and everyone pays for their own health care, security, roads, insurance, fire department etc. And if they can’t pay, then too bad? Or are we going to have a certain minimum, and that minimum is going to be provided in a public way that harmonizes across the communities that we have. And that’s what tax is about. It’s not about extracting revenue at all. It’s about creating revenue. It’s about creating a market. It’s about investing in a community. So I just object to the whole idea that tax is about extracting something from me, because what tax is doing is creating a market for me to be able to thrive. Not just me, but all of my neighbours, as well.

PW: Let’s jump forward to the events of the past couple weeks. Were you surprised when the Prime Minister suspended the Digital Services Tax?

Christians: I think “surprise” is probably too strong of a word, because nothing any political leader does to cope with the volatility of the United States would surprise me. We are dealing with a major threat, a threat that is threatening to annex us, to take our resources, to take our sovereignty, to take our communities and rip them apart and turn them into a different way of being. And that’s a serious threat. So nothing would surprise me in response to that. Disappointed, of course. But not disappointed in our Canadian response. More disappointed in the juggernaut that Trump has been allowed to become by his base, and that they’re pulling the rug out from under everyone that’s cooperated with the US agenda for decades, including us.

PW: What’s your best understanding of what the Digital Services Tax was designed to accomplish? And is it unusual as taxes go?

Christians: So to understand this, you really have to be a policy wonk, which isn’t much fun. So I’m gonna give you an example that might make it clear from the perspective of Canada. Why we might have a Digital Service Tax or might want something like it.

I want to preface this by saying that the Digital Service Tax is by no means the only way to do the underlying things we want to accomplish. Certainly other countries have been collecting DSTs and have been collecting billions of dollars, and US companies have had reserves for paying that Digital Service Tax. So we just left money on the table. But let me try to explain why we want to do the thing without getting too “tax nerdy” on you.

So I’m sure you can come up with the one Canadian company that’s streaming content on television or on digital devices.

PWCrave?

Christians: Yeah, that’s the one. Crave is owned by Bell Media and is a Canadian company. And Crave pays taxes in Canada. Crave has to compete against Netflix, which does not have to pay tax in Canada. Netflix just simply doesn’t have to pay the same way that Crave does unless we force them to pay. Crave has to compete with US and foreign content streamers. We may get to a point where we can get Netflix to collect some sales tax on the GST, for example. But if Netflix itself stays out of Canada, physically, but it’s still getting all those customers that otherwise Crave would have access to, then Crave is at a structural disadvantage.

Now tell me which Canadian provider competes with Google.

PW: I can’t think of one.

Christians: Exactly. There isn’t one. How are we supposed to get a homegrown competitor when our competition simply does not pay taxes, and any one we would grow here in Canada has to pay tax here? So we have to understand the Digital Service Tax as simply our response to the fact that we normally do not tax a company unless they are physically located in Canada. But now we’ve got to go into this digital space and say: you’re still here, even if we can’t see you and talk to you, you’re still here. You’re doing something in our market. And that’s what the Digital Service Tax was trying to deal with.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

PW: Now, how are companies likely to respond to this Digital Services Tax? It seems to me the likeliest outcome would be that they would pass those costs on to their customers.

Christians: Yes, that is what companies have said they would do. Google talked about passing those costs on to the customers. And their customers obviously are advertisers. I want to point out that advertisers in Canada used to advertise in local newspapers and media. Now they advertise on Facebook, owned by an American-headquartered Company, Meta. Right now, they advertise on those foreign platforms, so we don’t have those advertising dollars here. Advertisers might have had to pay the Digital Service Tax if Google, or whoever, had passed it on to them. I think it’s fair to say, that Canadians advertising on those foreign platforms would have faced a gross-up to cover that tax.

PW: So, the net effect is that it just becomes more expensive for Canadian consumers. I’ve seen it argued that all this tax would have succeeded in doing is making Netflix more expensive.

Christians: Okay, that’s possible. I mean, that assumes the supply is totally elastic: you can increase the price of Netflix, and people will still pay it indefinitely. Right? So that’s the assumption in the short term. But the long-term assumption is that Crave becomes more competitive — because its competitors are paying the same tax that it is paying. The Crave subscription price may or may not respond, but if you put pressure on the foreign service providers in the same manner that’s on the Canadian providers, it might cost more, but we’re also getting the tax.

PW: I believe the Prime Minister, in an interview with the CBC said that he was thinking of getting rid of this thing, anyway. [The quote I’m reaching for here is: “Look, what we did this week is something that I think we were going to do anyways, in the end, for the deal.” At 1:07 in this video. — pw] Why do you think he would have been leaning in that direction? And do you think that absent a Truth Social post by President Trump, he actually would have gotten rid of the thing?

Christians: I can’t speculate too much about the politics of this, because I’m not talking to many of the people that make policy, but I know the complaints about the DST, and I don’t dispute them. It was going to be a complicated tax to collect and it was going to be messy in terms of compliance. There’s a lot of uncertainty around the tax and I know there’s always an enormous amount of pressure to reduce all taxes. There’s always going to be that segment of society that sees taxes being thrown down the drain and not as an investment in the society that we want to live in.

Share

American companies are famous for investing their money on lobbying and not in taxes. They spend their money convincing us that it would be bad for us to tax them, and they can spend a much smaller percentage of their money on lobbying and get us to believe that narrative. And the narrative is that somehow, if we tax Google, Google will go away and we won’t be able to use it. That Google won’t innovate. It’s nonsense, but it’s a story that resonates nonetheless. Was Prime Minister Carney pressured to get rid of the DST? Undoubtedly. And maybe he personally thinks there’s a better way to tax these companies than with an excise tax. I don’t fault him for thinking that. I have even written that there are better ways for Canada to collect this tax than the Digital Services Tax.

PW: I’m going to want you to tell me about these other ways. But I assume that if a Canadian government attempts any of these other ways, then the companies we’re talking about know that all they have to do is hit the Trump button and the pressure will be right back on.

Christians: That’s correct. There are a couple of [alternatives to the DST]. We could, like some other countries have done, redefine the types of income that we subject to withholding taxes in Canada. It’s a complicated technical idea, but basically any payments that go from our advertisers to Google, we could impose a withholding tax simply by expanding a couple of definitions in the Income Tax Act that would then carry over into our treaty. Now, people will push back on that, and say that you’re changing a deal, and people will object to that. And we can have an argument about that, but that possibility exists. That withholding tax is the most straightforward way to do this and we should probably already be thinking about it.

Another one that’s kind of fun, which I really enjoyed learning about when I came to Canada, is Section 19 in the Income Tax Act. So, Canadian advertisers are paying Google now, instead of a Canadian newspaper. Well, Section 19 basically says that whenever someone makes a payment for advertising to a foreign, non-Canadian media, that payment’s not deductible.

Now that provision seems to violate Free Trade rules because it changes, depending on who you make the payment to. But it’s a provision in law. The US objected to it when we adopted it by imposing a reciprocal tax on US advertisers paying Canadian outlets, which doesn’t seem to bother anybody.

PW: But the application of that will be very asymmetrical, right?

Christians: Yes, for sure. And I’ll tell you what the Canadian media noticed when we started paying for digital newspapers online: that they’re not subject to Section 19 — only print and traditional media are subject to this denial of deduction — and Canadian media advocated for this denial of deduction for online publications as well.

All you have to do is look at the wording of Section 19 — and you don’t even have to change the words — and all of a sudden all those payments to Google are not deductible. But if the payments were to Crave, they would be deductible, and if they are to the Globe and Mail, or other Canadian companies, they would be deductible. That is a different kind of advantage for the Canadian competitor that’s a little less susceptible to Trump’s understanding, and a little less susceptible to the politics that surround the Digital Services Tax. But it’s technical. You have to explain it to people, and they don’t believe you. It’s hard to understand it.

PW: Theoretically a two-time central-bank governor could wrap his head around it.

Christians: Yes, I think he could fully understand it, for sure. You’re absolutely right. Will he want to do it, though? I just don’t know.

PW: You said that there are other jurisdictions that continue, today, to successfully tax the web giants. Who are you thinking of?

Christians: Well, Austria’s been doing the Digital Service Tax since the beginning. The UK has the Diverted Profits Tax that they’ve been using. Australia has one that’s been enforced. Austria stands out because I think it was 2017, in Trump’s 1st term, and it was part of a group that Trump threatened to retaliate against, but they just quietly kept going and they’re still collecting it. Part of the narrative is that we, Canada, came too late to the DST party. We just weren’t part of that initial negotiation. We came in too late, and then it was too obvious, and people were able to isolate us from the pack.

PW: My understanding is we’re looking at a hypothetical $7.2 billion in revenue over 5 years. And that represents a shortfall that’s going to have to be found either in other revenue sources or in spending cuts, or in greater debt. Aside from the DST, do you think Canada could use a general overhaul of its tax code?

Christians: Always. Yes, absolutely! Taxes are funny, right? Because they come into every single political battle, and what ends up happening is that politicians treat the Tax Act and the tax system as a present-giving machinery, and not as a clear policy deliverance system.

I am, every day, surprised at how complicated the Canadian tax system is. It’s way too complicated. You can’t even fill out your own tax return in this country. You’re going to make mistakes because it’s just too ridiculously written. It’s too confusing. It’s too messy. So it’s time to take another look. But you need a commission [like the 1962 Carter royal commission on taxation]. You need to be bipartisan. You need to spend money on that. You need to think that the things that you do have long-term effects, and this takes political courage. And basically it requires upsetting a bunch of people and resetting things, and we just might not be at the right time politically to be doing that because people feel vulnerable to volatility from abroad. So it may not be the time to push that.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy Paul Wells, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Alberta

Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada

Published on

From Pierre Poilievre

The tiny town of Hardisty, Alberta (623 people) moves $90 billion in energy a year—that’s more than the GDP of some countries.

Continue Reading

Trending

X