Ever since it has become obvious that Jim Flaherty was struggling with a rare skin condition, speculation as to his imminent exit from politics has been rampant.

And ever since his future has become a matter of speculation, the finance minister has fought the notion that he was on the way out every inch of the way . . . until this week.

If anything the latest Conservative budget has rekindled the debate over the minister’s future and — deliberately or not — Flaherty himself has been pouring fuel on the fire.

Part of the reason for the renewed speculation is cyclical. Flaherty’s 10th budget signalled the end of an era. A balanced budget is so near at hand that even if he left tomorrow he would still be considered to have accomplished his central mission.

In pre- and post-budget interviews he was also uncharacteristically noncommittal as to whether this was his last budget. He also seemed more inclined to discuss his legacy and the watershed moment that the 2008 global economic crisis was in his tenure than the actual 2014 budget and its aftermath.

That may be because Flaherty is more enthused with his government’s past accomplishments than with what it has in mind for next year’s budget.

Since Harper promised in the last election that once the deficit was erased couples with children would get to split their income to reduce their tax bill, the commitment has been a centrepiece of the Conservative agenda.

Many party strategists see it as a winning ticket to re-election in 2015. At the same time some leading experts — including the C.D. Howe Institute — are warning that it would primarily benefit high-income Canadians and/or that it could discourage mothers from returning to the workforce.

Even as he was pointing to the light at the end of the deficit tunnel this week the finance minister seemed to want to put the brakes on the income-splitting train. He publicly joined the ranks of the income-splitting skeptics.

On Wednesday Flaherty went further. He said that he was not convinced that family income-splitting “benefits our society.”

Finance ministers usually enjoy more leeway than average to test how elastic the party line is and on that score Flaherty is no exception. Unlike most of his Conservative colleagues, the finance minister can speak his mind with relative impunity. It is a privilege that he has increasingly used over the past few months.

Still it is exceedingly rare for a finance minister in any government to challenge in public a central tenet endorsed by the party and articulated by the prime minister himself.

In this instance the comments seem to have exacerbated existing tensions between Flaherty and Employment Minister Jason Kenney, as well as exposed some divisions within the government ranks.

The two influential ministers have clashed in the past — notably over whether Toronto Mayor Rob Ford should resign and the future of the Senate.

But the issue of income-splitting may not be the only current irritant between the two.

Flaherty’s budget threat to unilaterally implement the Canada Job Grant on April 1 unless the provinces sign off on the federal labour training initiative before then came at a sensitive time in Kenney’s ongoing negotiations with his counterparts. It was not immediately apparent that it was useful.

In question period on Wednesday the House was treated to the awkward sight of the finance minister watching from the sidelines as Harper handled all but one budget-related question. It is hard to think of a stronger signal that all is not as it should be on the government front bench.

Flaherty may have decided that he is done with budgets and, as a result, he may feel freer to speak his mind — regardless of where the chips may fall.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Worse — from Harper’s perspective — he may have decided that he would rather be done as finance minister than have to deliver on the prime minister’s income-splitting promise next year.

What is certain is that in a week when Flaherty could be celebrating his imminent triumph over the deficit he is not coming across as that happy a camper.

Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

Read more about: