The spokesperson does not reinterpret any terms.

This is correct. The spokesperson grants that if the proposal is enacted, some residents of the province — whether people who work for the province, or taxpayers as a whole — will have $600 million to spend. But the benefits of the refund will be offset by the need to either impose a new tax or dismiss workers for the province.

The spokesperson does not address the motivations of the opposing party. The spokesperson simply focuses on the consequences of the opposing party’s proposal.

This doesn't accurately describe the spokesperson's argument. It's certainly possible that different kinds of economic activity will result if the provincial government takes either of the two courses of action the spokesperson describes. But the spokesperson's argument doesn't focus on distinguishing between specific types of economic activity, arguing that one activity is somehow different from or will have different effects from another.

The argument's emphasis is almost the opposite: it doesn't matter what different economic activities, if any, will result if the government adds taxes or fires workers. The point is not even to distinguish how "adding taxes" itself is an "economic activity" different from "firing workers." The spokesperson isn't interested in the differences between these two scenarios and their consequences, but rather on the point that the government only has two courses of action, and neither of these courses of action (whatever other effects they produce) will produce an overall net increase in spending.

This is inaccurate. The spokesperson doesn't question whether taxpayers in general will spend money that is refunded to them. If anything, the spokesperson grants that if the proposal is enacted, some residents of the province — whether people who work for the province, or taxpayers as a whole — will have $600 million specifically "to spend." But the spokesperson's point is that even if they do spend the money, the negative effects of the proposal — new taxes or the cost of firing workers for the province — will offset the effects of that spending on the economy, so that there will be no net increase in spending.