Are en-route masters in physics viewed differently from terminal masters in physics in the Canadian job market? A little bit of context behind this question: I was asked, during a student presentation, whether an en-route masters (usually awarded upon passage of quals in a direct PhD plan) really was worth the same as a terminal masters (with thesis), knowing the latter is the norm in Canada.

That physics undergraduate said that she'd rather earn a terminal thesis masters than an en-route one (although I feel that this particular undergraduate could be offered a direct PhD plan), because a terminal masters would signal that one is capable of completing a research project, while an en-route masters usually involves a failed, unfinished or downsized research project, since a person in position to take quals usually spent upwards of a year in a research project in the direct PhD plans I know about.

So are terminal research masters in physics regarded differently from en-route masters in physics on the job market?

P.S.: Perhaps the answer varies from a field to another, so what's applicable to physics may not be applicable to, say, chemistry or history.
My understanding is that an en-route masters is simply a masters awarded with an understanding that the person will also continue onto a PhD. I don't think this assumption/understanding makes it any less of a masters. In other words, the masters is not conditional on work done in the PhD. My impression is also that the person would have needed to do several significant things to get the en-route masters, and the magnitude of those things is likely similar to the person who got a terminal masters.

So, no, I don't think en-route is viewed differently in general. 

Note that I am Canadian.