From your client's point of view, they want you personally to do the work and they are presumably paying accordingly. If they merely contracted with your company for the work then you could subcontract the work out to someone else with much lower qualifications and pocket the difference. The wording is intended to stop that.
You need to decide what happens if you are unable to do the work, for example if you fall ill. Since the contract specifies you personally, if you are unable to do the work then you are in breach of contract. Make sure there is some kind of liability limitation for any such circumstances, and think carefully about what those might be (e.g. a relative's funeral might not count unless the contract says so). If it is a long-term contract then make sure holidays are in. And probably other things I haven't thought of.
This contract makes you look like an employee and quack like an employee, but you are not an employee and do not have the rights of an employee unless the relevant labour law says otherwise. Various national and state legislatures have been cracking down on contracts that blur the line between employee and contractor, and having you personally named on the contract is the kind of thing that might trigger such a provision. You might also find that US or Canadian tax authorities treat this differently too.