Who should the public service bureaucrats be loyal to?

Not, as James Travers says, the government of the day.

Perhaps it is simply imprecise word choice on his part, or lack of expanding on his statement, but these lines do not help people understand the non-partisan nature of the public service, nor why it is necessary to respect that the public service serves the public, not the elected government:

Certainly the government of the day has every right to expect bureaucrat loyalty.

No, it doesn’t. While it is the duty of the public service to forward government’s will as directed by the Minister in charge (with the exception of the independent agencies who do not have a Minsiter), it is not a question of loyalty. They serve Canada and Canadians, and must fulfill the elected government’s orders within the boundaries of their mandates and as directed by existing legislation which defines the responsibilities of an independent public service.

It would be more accurate to say that the government of the day has every right to expect bureaucrat cooperation and respect for the acts outlining the responsibilities of public servants.

For the public service, it is not at all (and should never be) an issue of loyalty, but of a committment and dedication to following the rules by which they are bound, regardless of who holds the most seats in Parliament. These rules and acts were developed by all of Parliament, over many, many sessions. They are regularly updated and adjusted as public needs change. Never should they be altered to accommodate the goals of a particular party in power.

If the public service was expected to shift loyalties to accommodate elected governments, there would be no stability in the public service and long term planning would be a waste of time.

Travers is also incorrect in what he says about the rights of Prime Ministers when it comes to public servants:

Prime ministers have as much right to set their administration's tone as they have to expect the bureaucracy to execute government's will.

The statement is a little vague, saying that one right is equal to the other, without really defining the range of those rights, but implying that they are considerable.

Yes, the Prime Minister does have some leeway in setting the tone in departments, but once more, existing policies limit that right to safeguard against any PM using public services to forward their own political agendas. We have already seen many cases of abuse of such policies, especially with the harper government - using public service sites to launch attack ads, changing the look of departmental sites so that they appear clones of the CPC ones, ignoring Treasury Board guidelines and introducing terms such as Harper’s Government rather than the Government of Canada.

After all, democracy demands that mandarins advise, ministers decide. Still, enforced silence and reflex compliance are anathemas to the openness and intellectual argy-bargy that are essential to the creation of effective policies that put the nation on the most beneficial course.

Yes. Travers is correct on that point. And by clouding the accountability and the independence of the public service by saying the government of the day has every right to expect (its) loyalty, Travers feeds the very thing he decries: enforced silence and reflex compliance would be the result of loyalty to governments of the day.