there was no mention of the intent of the Legislature or the source of this amendment and one could not be discerned from the transcripts. It is also an established canon of statutory construction that all the “provisions upon a subject are to be harmonized and read together so as to effectuate the purposes of the statute, this is to be done in the light of the presumed desire and intent of the Legislature to enact a statute which is constitutional and otherwise valid.” Port Const. Co. v. Gov’t of the V.I., 5 V.I. 549, 554 (3d Cir. 1966). To determine legislative intent, courts often read the statute as a whole, looking to the statutory language itself, the subject and purpose of the statute, and any available legislative history. See Murrell v. People, 54 V.I. 338, 347 (V.I. 2010) (<HOLDING>); In re Petition of Mejia, 58 V.I. at 141. In
holding legislative intent is determined by reading statute as a whole and interpreting it to give effect to all and not just isolated portions holding that courts must give effect to every word when interpreting a statute holding that when interpreting a statute or regulation courts must read the provisions of the law as a whole and in context holding courts must adhere to legislative intent when interpreting a statute recognizing that when interpreting a statute a courts inquiry begins with the text