Accurate and transparent earthquake magnitude estimation is essential for the effective regulation of industrial activity that can induce seismicity, particularly in regions such as northeastern British Columbia (NEBC) where operational decisions rely on real-time monitoring. Regulatory frameworks must balance consistency with scientific rigor. However, magnitude estimates based on near-field observations can be biased. This has strong implications for mandated seismic monitoring by well operators, who typically only acquire near-field observations. In this study, we evaluate the performance of the regional seismic monitoring network operated by the British Columbia Energy Regulator (BCER) and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). Using a large set of amplitude observations spanning a decade of induced seismicity, we examine how measured amplitudes vary spatially and assess deviations from the operational local magnitude model. Our analysis shows that near-field recordings commonly exhibit amplification, but that this behavior varies strongly between stations. This suggests that local geology, rather than propagation geometry, is the dominant control. Despite these effects, regional monitoring produces robust and internally consistent magnitude estimates. Any near-field bias is modest and does not significantly affect magnitude estimates for the largest events, which are of greatest regulatory importance. We further show that applying local station corrections and distance-weighted averaging effectively mitigates near-field bias without requiring changes to the underlying magnitude model. These results demonstrate that the current BCER/NRCan monitoring framework is fit for regulatory purpose, and highlight the value of regional observations for reliable magnitude estimation in operational and regulatory settings.