I don't see that Canada Steamships v R has much scope for operation here, does it? If I remember correctly, the Canada Steamship test is something like "(1) If the clause expressly covers negligence then that is the end of it; (2) if it is wide enough to cover negligence without expressly mentioning negligence then one asks whether it could cover some other liability, and if it could, then it covers only that".
I think that is a pretty silly test of construction, but putting that aside. I would probably argue that "liability in failing to exercise reasonable care and skill" expressly covers negligence, because that is the definition of negligence [even though the word 'negligence' is not used. But if that is wrong, then the clause is certainly wide enough to cover negligence, and it doesn't seem to cover anything else. The clauses in Canada Steamships, and Hollier v Rambler Motors, were both wide enough to cover strict liability - and so were held to cover only strict liability (obiter in Hollier as it wasn't even incorporated). But that doesn't apply here given the wording of the clause.
*Any* clause purporting to restrict liability for personal injury or death caused by negligence is covered by s 2(1) - whether it is an outright exclusion or a limitation. If the clause purports to restrict liability for some other loss or damage then it falls within s 2(2). It is much more likely to be held reasonable under s 2(2) if it is a limitation clause and not an absolute exclusion - but that is a question of fact and not a rule of law. It may be that even a clause excluding liability absolutely could be reasonable in some situations. Equally, a limitation clause set at an absurdly low level is not going to be reasonable just because it's a limitation and not an exclusion.